Preamble

The House met at Ten o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

TRADE UNIONS DUES BILL

10.5 a.m.

Mr. Anthony Grant: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that all application forms for membership of a trade union shall specifically refer to the right of the applicant not to pay a political levy to the union; and for purposes connected therewith
This Bill does not seek to stop payment of a political levy although, so far as I am aware, Britain is the only industrial nation in the free world which carries on what I regard as a foolish practice. It does not even seek to compel contracting in as opposed to contracting out. It is merely a modest, small but important reform, designed to ensure that people joining trade unions, usually both compulsorily and in their own interests, clearly understand where the dues that they pay go to.
In the vast majority of cases trade union members are not even aware that they are paying a political levy. As the law stands, union rules concerning a political fund have to be approved by

the Registrar. The rules can be obtained by a member if he asks for them, but he will usually find that they run into over a hundred pages of not particularly attractive prose, and in some cases the union rules say that a form of exemption notice
… shall be published in such a manner, whether in the union's journal or report or otherwise, as notices are usually given by the union or its branches to its members, and the secretary of each branch will take steps to secure that every member of the branch, so far as practicable receives a copy of such notice …
or some similar wording.
In practice the initiative is always left to the individual who usually experiences considerable difficulty in obtaining copies of the contracting-out form. He is rather like the traveller on the railways who sees on his ticket the words "For conditions see reverse", and on the reverse he finds that it says that the conditions can be obtained from the railway office. If he goes there he finds that the clerk has gone to lunch, and by the time the clerk returns the train has gone.
Relatively few of the unions maintaining political funds make mention of the political levy on their application forms. The forms include details of the dues payable, but in many cases the amount stated as contribution includes the political levy. Practice varies in different cases. The National Union of Mine-workers makes the point perfectly clear. The T.G.W.U., the N.U.G.M.W., the E.T.U. and D.A.T.A. among others make


no reference to the political levy and a new applicant, if he thinks about it at all, does not know whether it is included in the contribution. If it were made a statutory obligation upon unions to incorporate the contracting-out form in the application in the first instance and to draw attention to the applicant's rights, he would at least know where he stood.
The modern trend in society is towards protecting people by greater and more accurate disclosure. There is the Hire Purchase Act, 1964, the Misrepresentation Act, and the labelling of food and drink legislation. In addition there is the work of the Consumer Council, and now we have the Companies Bill wending its way through Committee. This is a thoroughly desirable trend, but the question is posed: why should the Labour Party be immune from it? If trade union membership is so inextricably entwined with the Labour Party, and if trade unionists are so consumed with love and affection for the Labour Government, then they will have no need to be afraid to call attention to the right to contract out, because applicants will joyously disregard the warning. If, on the other hand, the Government and the trade unions fear that if this right were known more generally it would be more often exercised, this is a pretty poor reflection on the confidence of the Government in our industrial workers—indeed on the confidence of industrial workers in the Government. The truth is that more and more trade unionists are becoming thoroughly disillusioned with the Labour Government and their economic policy of stagnation. Particularly are they disillusioned with the notorious Prices and Incomes Act, which strikes at the funda-

mental trade union principles of free bargaining and the sanctity of contract. More and more would contract out if the right to do so was not so wrapped in a miasma of obscurity.
The only conceivable argument which I believe can be advanced against the Bill is to suggest that it be left until the Royal Commission has reported, whenever that may be. But precedent is against this argument, because the Government did not allow this to worry them when they brought in the notorious Trade Disputes Act, 1965, which made fundamental and direct changes in the law and granted trade unions an entirely fresh privilege over their fellow members.
Frankness and honesty of purpose are qualities much vaunted by hon. Members opposite and by many of us. Therefore, I submit that they should practise what they preach and give support to the proposed Bill, which seeks to throw a little light on one of the rather more murky corners of our industrial and political life.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Grant, Sir E. Brown, Mr. Iremonger, Mr. David Mitchell, and Mr. John Page.

TRADE UNIONS DUES BILL

Bill to provide that all application forms for membership of a trade union shall specifically refer to the right of the applicant not to pay a political levy to the union; and for purposes connected therewith, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday and to be printed. [Bill 247.]

Orders of the Day — LIVE HARE COURSING (ABOLITION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Speaker: The debate upon which we are entering cuts across party lines. There are supporters and opponents of the proposed Bill on both sides of the House. I shall endeavour to secure a balanced debate.

10.13 a.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The first thing which I wish to do is to thank the Lord President of the Council for allowing Parliamentary time for the Bill. The Government receive not only my personal thanks and those of the sponsors of the Bill, but the thanks of countless thousands of people from all walks of life and from every part of the country.
I realise that many Members are somewhat annoyed because the Bill has been given time as against others. I sympathise with them, but hope that it will not colour their attitude to the Bill. I trust that the Bill will be considered on its merits and not opposed by anyone for reasons which have nothing to do with the issue before us.
A number of attempts have been made to abolish the coursing of live hares. In 1925, a Bill to prohibit the coursing of hares and rabbits got through its Committee stage, but, unfortunately, failed to secure a Third Reading through lack of Parliamentary time. On 25th February, 1949, Mr. Seymour Cocks moved the Second Reading of the Protection of Animals (Hunting and Coursing Prohibition) Bill. A debate took place, but the Bill failed owing to Government opposition, possibly because it was too wide in its scope. Therefore, the fact is that 42 years ago this House almost abolished live hare coursing but failed to do so due to lack of Parliamentary time. I believe that it would be a tragedy if a similar situation were to develop in this Session.
In his speech introducing the Bill, Mr. Seymour Cocks said—and I believe that this is worth quoting:
We in this country are not a cruel race. We always pride ourselves on our love for

animals. However, this love for animals which characterises our people is of very modern growth. Just over 100 years ago there was very little love for animals in this land. Horrible cruelties were perpetrated on animals in the early part of last century and there was no law to prevent them. Cats were skinned alive for the sake of their fur, bears and badgers were baited, dogs were matched against monkeys and fought each other to the death and bull baiting was a national sport and was defended in the House of Commons …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th February, 1949, Vol. 461, c. 2168–9.]
It is a sign of our democratic strength as a nation that even at this moment, when the country is being asked to consider momentous decisions, time can be found for Parliament to decide whether the coursing of live hares should be abolished.
The Bill, as I said in the speech when I introduced it, is very simple. The Explanatory Memorandum reads as follows:
The purpose of the Bill is to prohibit hare coursing of a particular kind, namely where steps are taken to bring two or more dogs and a hare within sight of each other and the dogs are only then released for pursuit with a view to a comparison being made of the respective coursing abilities of those dogs.
It has been suggested by friends and foes of the Bill alike that it does not go far enough. Hon. Members who feel that can, if they so desire, put down a number of Amendments to strengthen the Bill even further. But that would not be my view. I think that we have to deal with this one issue at this time. It is right that we should do it in this way. Therefore, in a sense, the Bill is restrictive in nature. It has only two Clauses and therefore is extremely short. It is designed only to do what it says and cannot be interpreted in any other way.
Let me define what coursing is, as I did on 31st January on First Reading. Again, I quote from the publication issued by the National Coursing Club, "The Truth about Coursing", which says:
Coursing is a sport of testing the merits of two greyhounds in their competitive pursuit of a hare.
The hare, we are told, is in a sense incidental to the sport.
On page 36 of the Rules of the National Coursing Club, Rule 24 gives the points of the course, and I quote:
The points of the course are:—

(a) speed—which shall be estimated as one, two or three points, according to the degree of superiority shown.


(b) the Go-Bye—two points, or if gained on the outer circle, three points.
(c) the Turn—one point.
(d) the Wrench—half a point.
(e the Kill—two points, or, in a descending scale, in proportion to the degree of merit displayed in that kill, which may be of no value.
(f) the Trip—one point."
Pages 37 and 38 contain a definition of the
points which I have mentioned. Let me quote them, one on the merit of the kill; and, two, on the trip. I again quote:
The merit of the kill must be estimated according to whether a dog by his own superior dash and skill, bears the hare; whether he picks her up through any little accidental circumstances favouring him, or whether she is turned into his mouth, as it were, by the other dog. The trip, or unsuccessful effort to kill, is where the hare is thrown off her legs or where a dog flecks her but cannot hold her.
I emphasise that those are not my words. They are from the rules of the National Coursing Club. I trust that we shall hear no more from the opponents of the Bill to the effect that the kill is not an essential or inherent part of this brutal and inhuman sport.
Since I first introduced the Bill thousands of letters urging the abolition of this so-called sport have been received by myself and by other hon. Members. Many hon. Members have suggested giving me their postage bills, which I am sure would immediately have bankrupted me, such is the number of replies they have had to send to people who have written to them. In addition, I and other hon. Members have received many petitions containing thousands of names. The letters and petitions have not been confined to city and town dwellers, as some people have alleged, but come from all parts of the nation, including village and country dwellers.
I want to quote just a few of these letters. One dated 1st February says this:
I was once a beater for the Isle of Thanet hunt and coursing club. I was out of work at the time and this beater's job was offered me (two days) 15s. a day at the Margate Labour Exchange, so of course I went. I was sick with despair at this so-called sport, but I needed that 30s. at the time, but I did not go back to finish the meeting, because it was horrible".
A farmer's wife says this in a letter:
I have never written to an M.P. before, but I feel so strongly on this subject that I

would like to know if there is any way in which I could help to get this Bill passed. … We farm about 350 acres in Hertfordshire and naturally have many hares on the farm. Admittedly, they do do damage to our sugar beet and other crops, so when there are too many around my husband has to organise a shoot to reduce the number of hares. He does not do this for the joy of killing the hares, and the shooting is done with great care to ensure that no animal is injured but dispatched quickly and as near painlessly as possible.

Mr. R. T. Paget: Nonsense.

Mr. Heffer: The lady continues:
The hares are not chased for miles in fear of their lives as with coursing. I am sure that most farmers who have to reduce the number of hares on their farms do so as humanely as possible, so the argument put by one of the coursing gentlemen that 50 per cent. of the shot hares go off to die in agony is a gross exaggeration.
Someone writing from Stafford says this:
I have heard that there is hesitation to do anything to stop hare coursing because of its long association as a sport in the Northern Mining areas. I am a Northerner by birth and hare coursing was very much a sport of the wealthy. The mining community and the farmers raced whippets asd hounds by aniseed trailing, which many of us have watched and thoroughly enjoyed. If only this kind of 'coursing' could become more popular here; no one is torn to pieces in great agony. Dogs, owners and spectators all enjoy themselves and it can be most exciting.
Those are three of the many thousands of letters that have been received by hon. Members and myself. The abolition of this so-called sport will be a most popular act and, as you yourself said, Mr. Speaker, it cuts across party division and is supported by people of all religious denominations and by some who profess no religion at all.
Many of our great national newspapers have either declared their support for the Bill or have carried articles about live hare coursing. Let me list a few—the People, the Sun, the Daily Mirror, the Sunday Times, the Daily Mail, and the Sketch. There are others, and if I have missed them out I apologise to them.
The whole question has also received wide television and radio coverage. The Bill is supported by the R.S.P.C.A., by the League Against Cruel Sports, and by many other animal protection and animal lovers societies. A letter dated 12th


April from the League Against Cruel Sports to the Home Secretary says this:
Sir, we have received in the office the below number of signatures, petitioning for government support of Mr. Eric Heffer's Bill for the Abolition of Hare Coursing as a result of a single advertisement in each of the following newspapers—The Liverpool Echo, 5,500; the Yorkshire Post, 3,082; the Daily Mail, 18,579, making a total of 27,161.
Those petition forms were contained in newspapers. Anyone signing one had to fill in the form, go to a post office to get a stamp, and then send it off. The number of petition forms I have received regarding abortion has been infinitesimal compared to the number of petition forms which has been sent to me on this issue. This shows that there is a real interest and, without question, indicates that the majority of people are for the Bill.
However, it may be said, and I am sure that it will be said, that 27,000 is only a small number. The League Against Cruel Sports asked the National Opinion Polls to organise a poll. These are the results.
Two questions were asked. The first was:
Do you approve or disapprove of live hare coursing (that is, the blood sport in which two dogs compete against each other by using a live hare as a quarry)?
The second was:
Parliament is considering a Bill to abolish hare coursing. The Bill is unlikely to be passed unless the Government support it. Do you think the Government should support the Bill or not?".
I disagree with the phrasing of the second question, but the point is made clear to the person being asked.
The answers to those questions were as follows. Those who approved of live hare coursing were 17 per cent., those who disapproved were 77 per cent. and the "don't knows" were 11 per cent. As for the second question, those who thought that the Bill should be supported were 75 per cent., those against were 15 per cent. and the "don't knows" were 11 per cent. I believe that the results of the National Opinion Poll, plus the petitions and letters, truly indicate where the people stand in relation to this Bill.
Why, then, are they supporting the Bill? No doubt there are many hon. Members who will say that it is out of ignorance, that the whole matter has been blown up, that it has got out of

proportion and is greatly exaggerated. No doubt the same arguments will be used today as were used when the campaign against cock fighting was an issue in the House and in the country.
Let me again give some of the facts about what I believe to be a horrible business. Since the First Reading of the Bill, the Waterloo Cup meeting has been held at Lydiate, near Ormskirk, and this is the blue riband event of the whole hare-coursing world. I want to give some of the facts about events on the second day, which was 9th February, 1967. The following is an accurate record of events as seen by Mr. Swift, who had a stopwatch, and Mr. J. C. Burns, which was taking notes, and I have before me a document prepared by those gentlemen. This was on the second day:
Race No 6 in the Waterloo Cup: Duration of course, 18 seconds. Time for kill, 9 seconds. 'Tug of war': No. Very weak hare, not fully grown. Much abuse from crowd to the slipper about this, presumably because it was a poor contest.
Race No. 7: 79 seconds. Time for kill: in ditch; could not time this kill. A very gruelling run. Hare was killed in ditch after attempting to clear it. - Crowd milled round ditch to witness the kill.
Then we have race No. 7 in the Waterloo Purse:
20 seconds. Hound which won 'tug of war' would not let go of hare and finally ran off with hare, the back legs of which were bleeding and still kicking.
Then we have Waterloo Purse race No. 10—and I cannot read them all because of the pressure of time, but they are extremely gruelling to read.
Hare flung into the air as it was caught on the turn.
Then we have Waterloo Purse race No. 15:
A particularly macabre 'tug of war', during which handlers were unable to separate the two hounds. When finally dropped the hare continued to kick and squirm and no attempt to put it out of its misery was made by either handler. About 45 seconds later a beater arrived and stamped on the stricken animal several times.
So it goes on, and I want now to read some general observations:
Many spectators judged the weather as 'perfect for coursing'. There had been some rain on the previous night but the day itself was fine with sunny spells and only one shower. Yet under 'perfect' conditions 23 out of 44 hares were killed … All the investigators remarked that the greyhounds do not kill as a terrier will kill a rat. There is absolutely


no truth in the 'quick nip behind the head and she is dead' argument. The dog simply grabs the hare.
At a certain stage of the proceedings, there was an altercation between Mr. Rowley and Lord Kenyon. The altercation arose because Mr. Rowley had been taking photographs, with specially adapted binoculars, and I have those photographs for everyone to see. They were taken during the Waterloo Cup this year—not in the past, not a hundred years ago, but two or three months ago. They are photographs of actual events which occurred at the Waterloo Cup meeting. I am only sorry that every hon. Member has not been able to see the photographs.
It can be argued that the League Against Cruel Sports is an extremist organisation and that it is, as it were, the left wing of the movement. The most respectable animal organisation in the country is the R.S.P.C.A. I do not know whether members of that body could be called "centre-ists" or "conservatives", but there is no doubt that it is a respectable body. I want now to quote some recent reports from the R.S.P.C.A. These, again, have come up since the Bill was introduced on 31st January.
The first is from Inspector No. 81, of Bedfordshire:
Of the 16 hares killed, 4 of them were still alive 30 seconds after being caught by the hound. Their screams could be heard 200 yards away. One incident which I should like to record was where two hounds had coursed a hare for a full 3 minutes. The hounds were almost at dropping point. The hare also was showing signs of exhaustion but was headed for a thicket and safety, when a stray hound broke into the course and nipped the hare, throwing it over its back. The hare was immediately caught by the other two hounds, and all three were tearing at this poor creature and the screams could be heard for 15 seconds before the body was ripped apart. On talking about this incident to other spectators, it appears that this is quite a common occurrence, which gives the lie to the rule about a reasonable means of escape.
This is a report by Senior Inspector No. 227, again of Bedfordshire:
Three hounds were unable to race in the finals, owing to injuries received when coursing over soil with sharp flints exposed in the ploughed fields. With regard to the kill, four of these were out of sight of the spectators, but on three occasions where the killing was witnessed, the screams of the hares could be heard for seconds after the hounds were tearing at them, and in one case one hound holding the hare in its mouth rolled over on to its

back owing to the speed at which it was travelling, and the second hound made a grab at the hare, pulling it away from the first hound. The second hound then dropped the hare, which commenced running for a few yards before it was caught and killed.
Quite often, the hounds themselves are injured, and in that connection I wish to quote reports by R.S.P.C.A. inspectors of two incidents which took place this year and a third which occurred in 1964. R.S.P.C.A. Senior Inspector No. 227 of Bedfordshire, whom I have already quoted, stated:
Three hounds were unable to race in the finals owing to injuries received …
Inspector No. 81, also of Bedfordshire, stated in March of this year:
… two hounds had coursed a hare for a full three minutes and the hounds were almost at dropping point …
Senior inspector No. 55 said in February, 1964:
There were two casualties during the day. Dog No. 3 collided on a turn and broke his right hind leg in the region of the hock joint. It tried to carry on chasing with the leg dangling until eventually caught Dog No. 52 also collided on the turn and broke his right foreleg under the knee joint.
In February, 1949, Mr. Carson, the then hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet said:
I have been to coursing meetings before the war. I have seen the hare, as it became exhausted, and as the dogs or hounds began to overtake it, screaming in terror. Someone told me the other day that that is a reflex action. I do not believe it. The hare is alive, it is frightened and it is perfectly aware of what is going on. I heard that scream in six courses in one day, and I shall remember it as long as I live. I do not want to hear it again, and I do not intend to do so."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th February, 1949; Vol. 461, c. 2183.]
The defenders of this so-called sport argue, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that it is not a cruel sport. Lord Sefton, according to an article in the Liverpool Daily Post of 20th February, 1945—at that time a great argument was raging about whether or not it was a cruel sport—stated:
I maintain strongly and with complete conviction that, of the so-called blood sports, coursing is the least cruel.
I have no doubt that those who oppose the Bill will quote from the Report of the Committee on Cruelty to Live Animals which was presented to Parliament in June, 1951. On page 110 the Report stated:
The degree of cruelty involved in coursing is not sufficient to justify its prohibition. For


the reasons set out in paragraphs 280 and 281. however, we make no specific recommendations as to the continuation of this sport.
It is interesting to note that the paragraph 281 there referred to stated:
Even if coursing is not prohibited, we should point out that, if our general recommendations about cruelty to wild animals are accepted, anyone who takes part in coursing and either causes unnecessary suffering or fails to take reasonable precautions to prevent … unnecessary suffering may be liable to a conviction for causing cruelty to a wild animal.
The whole issue there turns on the phrase "unnecessary suffering".

Mr. James Ramsden: In fairness, would the hon. Gentleman quote the beginning of paragraph 280, to which he referred?

Mr. Heffer: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to quote that paragraph to the House. He must allow me to make my own speech.
I believe, as do those who support the Bill, that the whole idea of competitive coursing causes unnecessary suffering, not only to the hares but often to the hounds. It also creates among those who participate and watch an attitude of mind which leads to unnecessary cruelty. After all, what do we mean by "cruel" and "unnecessary"? I cannot think of anything worse than two dogs chasing a hare for pleasure. This in itself is unnecessary cruelty and cannot be justified, even by the standards of that Committee.

Mr. Gilbert Longden: I apologise for arriving late and the hon. Gentleman may have referred to this matter earlier—but may I ask whether his Bill would prohibit beagling? He says that he can think of nothing worse than two dogs chasing a hare. Would not he agree that a pack of hounds chasing a hare is equally cruel, and, if not, why not?

Mr. Heffer: If the hon. Gentleman had read my Bill he would know that it does not deal with beagling but with competitive live hare coursing. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to introduce a Bill to abolish beagling I will willingly sponsor it with him and assure him of my fullest support.
In my view, the Scott Henderson Report was wrong in its conclusions about live hare coursing, especially if one reads what the Committee stated about the so-

called sport. For example, in paragraph 14 of the Appendix to the Report an account was given of the Waterloo Coursing Meeting, the final day of which the representatives of that Committee attended in 1950. They stated in their Report:
Sometimes, of course, the hare does not get away and is killed by the dogs. Usually the leading dog catches it and pulls it down, but the other dog is, as a rule, so close behind that it is also on the hare within a second or two. The speed is so great that it is impossible to see what actually happens, but generally the hare is on the ground with both dogs biting at it.
The Report went on to give the figures of the number of hares killed during three days of one meeting. On the first day there were 48 courses and 20 hares, or 41 per cent., were killed. On the second day, 36 hares were killed in 44 courses, which means that 82 per cent. of the hares were killed. On the third day seven hares were killed in 17 courses, or 41 per cent. of hares. The report also stated in paragraph 17 of the Appendix:
Some of the dogs also suffer as a result of the weather. We saw one dog slip while turning a hare and break a leg, and the same thing happened at least once the previous day.
I believe most strongly that the evidence of the Scott Henderson Committee contradicts its conclusions. I do not know why that should be so, but it must be said that any arguments based on those conclusions are misguided and irrelevant to this issue.
I have spoken at considerable length today and I could speak at even greater length, so strongly do I feel about this issue. I am sure that I have said enough to have made out an adequate case for the abolition of live hare coursing. Many arguments in favour of coursing will be adduced today. Some will say that coursing controls the level of hares and, therefore, fulfils a useful function. Again, I have evidence from the R.S.P.C.A. which shows that in one part of the country beaters were beating up for a shoot while almost next door beaters were beating up for a course. It is very strange that that should be going on at the same time.
Control is not the real purpose. If these people were concerned only with controlling the hares they would do as the farmers do—shoot them when necessary and when the occasion arose. The real purpose is the competitiveness, the pleasure, that certain people get—the


"fun", as a young lady described it on television, that they get out of the kill. That is the real purpose of this so-called competitive sport.
The second argument will no doubt be that the people in the countryside are against the Bill, and that therefore it is not popular. I have had hundreds of letters from people in the countryside—and the one I quoted was an example—demanding the abolition of this so-called sport.
The other great argument will be, of course, that the Bill strikes at the liberty of the individual. This is the most disgraceful argument of them all, but it has always been used. It was used against the abolition of child labour in the mines. Against every progressive Measure that has ever been introduced into this House of Commons for the abolition of some form of cruelty, the argument of the liberty of the individual has been raised. It was raised in connection with cock fighting, bull baiting, and all the other so-called sports with which this House has had to deal.
This so-called sport is a cruel and bestial thing, and a relic of the past. The fact that it is an old sport is in no way evidence that it should continue. I hope that no one will argue about its ancestry from the days of the Pharaohs. Further, the people are in a majority against this coursing, and would welcome its abolition as a humanitarian as well as a civilised step.
I conclude by quoting from a letter to The Times from Lord Soper on Friday, 14th April which, in my opinion, sums up the whole case against live hare coursing. Lord Soper wrote:
Here is a matter upon which there surely ought to be no difficulty for the Christian conscience, indeed for any sort of educated conscience. The coursing of hares is morally detestable. There is nothing of genuine import to be said in its favour, and everything to be said for its abolition.

Sir Richard Glyn: Before the hon. Member sits down, will he tell us why it is more cruel to course a hare with two dogs than with one?

Mr. Heffer: I have sat down. I am sorry.

10.54 a.m.

Mr. Marcus Kimball: I think that the action we saw before

the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) introduced his Bill, when the Trade Unions Dues Bill was not opposed, disposes of the argument that has already been used that this Bill was not voted against or spoken against when the hon. Member asked leave to introduce it. We think of this Bill in exactly the same way as we have done of the previous two similar Bills. It was only in 1957 that my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) spoke against a similar Bill, but we did not vote against it.
It is important to have on the record the fact that when hon. Members know that there is no chance whatever of a Bill becoming law one does not get a truly representative vote. This was the position until 3.30 p.m. on Thursday, 20th April. Until then, the hon. Member's Bill was right down the list of Private Members' Bills, and I think that this point is important when we are assessing the effect of the letter-writing campaign which the hon. Gentleman has already mentioned.
I must appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, as the protector of minority interests in the House, to remember that members of the sporting community are used to this game. We have been under fire many times before. We know the rules of the game as they used to be. We know that one real danger would be if the Government were ever misguided enough to introduce their own Bill. The other real danger is if an hon. Member draws place No. 1 or No. 6 in the Ballot, when we are faced with Second Reading before Christmas, or early in January. We have never before had a situation in which we have been given only 10 days' warning of the Second Reading of a Bill. I do not want to labour the point, but it is important that we should have it on record.
It is also important to record that as long ago as last July I went to see the right hon. Lady, the Minister of State, Home Office to inform her that not only the National Coursing Club, but the governing bodies of all the sporting organisations which the British Field Sports Society represents, were ready to co-operate with the Government if they wished to work on the lines of the Scott Henderson Report, and legislate on the


sections of that Report that have not been implemented.
The last thing that one should have on record is that the chairman of the National Coursing Club wrote to the Home Office on 27th March—after the Bill was published—and asked to see the Home Secretary. It is rather remiss that she and her colleagues were not asked to go to the Home Office until Friday afternoon, after it had been decided that the Government would give time for the Bill.
We must accept from the start of this debate that the Government have fallen for a campaign of misrepresentation. This was one of the points made in 1949 and commented on in the Scott Henderson Report, and it is exactly the present position. The hon. Member may make great play of the number of hon. Members who signed the Motion on the Order Paper in support of the Bill, but the Scott Henderson Report found in 1947 that it was easy to understand how Members of Parliament, magistrates and clergymen, if supplied with the kind of literature which was then circulating, were only too ready to sign petitions and other things.
I want to deal with this misrepresentation, because we are suffering very badly from it in the countryside. The first and worst kind of misrepresentation is to be found, not only in the literature put out by the opponents of the sport but in the frightful pictorial matter published. I, too, have the photographs to which the hon. Member has referred. I would point out that to any one who knows anything about the handling of hares it is quite apparent that the hares in the photographs are all dead. The point is always made of a tug-o'-war between two dogs, but the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that hares killed at coursing meetings are sold to poulterers. If the hares had been damaged by the dogs they would be unlikely to be accepted by those who wanted to sell them.
It is very important that we should dispose early in this debate of the argument that I have seen in some newspapers that the dogs should course in muzzles, and not kill the hare. Any one who has seen a greyhound kill a hare will understand that if the hare is not dead the greyhound will not get it off the ground, but will pummel it into the ground. That is why I say that photo-

graphs which show hares off the ground are photographs of dead hares. Greyhounds would worry a handkerchief if they were encouraged, and that is all they are doing in the photographs.
Another misrepresentation is that so much is made of the screams of the hare. I saw a young golden eagle try to catch a hare on top of a hill, and the only thing that saved the hare was its screams, which prevented the eagle from coming in for the final strike. It is on these occasions that the House would realise that the course of nature is very cruel indeed and that the screaming is one of the normal defensive mechanisms of a hare when it is in trouble.
I find it extraordinary that none of the hon. Members who support this Bill has come as a guest of the National Coursing Club to a meeting. The hon. Member for Walton, when he asked leave to introduce the Bill, argued that one does not have to see murder or wife beating to know that it is wrong. There is no argument between us about murder or wife beating, but there is a very serious argument between us about the merits of coursing hares with greyhounds. In the countryside many respected people from all walks of life enjoy this sport, as was indicated by the Government inquiry set up by the last Socialist Government to look into cruelty to British wild animals.
Above all, the members of the National Coursing Club resent the refusal of hon. Members opposite to come to see the sport for themselves. We want to make quite clear that we resent the allegations of the hon. Member about the character and mental attitude of the people who enjoy this sport. I ask him to look at the character and mental attitude of the people who enjoy indoor and sitting-down sport in night clubs, public houses, coffee bars and dance halls. There is enough scope for private Members' legislation there to keep him going for a whole Session of Parliament. This Bill is not about cruelty at all as I understand it. To chase a hare with one long dog is apparently not cruelty according to the hon. Member, but to chase a hare with two long dogs is said to be cruelty.

Mr. Heffer: I have not said that it is not cruel to chase a hare with one dog. If the hon. Member wishes to introduce a Bill to stop that or wishes to put down an Amendment to this Bill


abolishing that as well we shall be pleased to accept it.

Mr. Kimball: I accept that the hon. Member for Walton may not have said it but his supporters take the view that they are supporting a Bill to abolish cruelty and this is not so. Hon. Friends of mine who are better qualified to do so will deal with the legal side of the argument and with the incompetence of the Bill. Has the hon. Member thought of what will happen to the 70 trainers of greyhounds to the staff and the rearers of dogs and all concerned with the industry?

Mr. Michael Jopling: Is my hon. Friend aware that at a recent sale of greyhounds many dogs were withdrawn because many breeders are suffering considerably as a result of this Bill?

Mr. Kimball: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Walton realises that at sapling sales breeders nearly all have to withdraw litters as a result of his activities.
When he was introducing the Second Reading of the Bill I thought that the hon. Member for the wrong reasons, was coming to the right conclusion about how we could handle the matter. He spoke of the 1911 Protection of Animals Act. The Scott Henderson Report made it perfectly clear that that Committee would like to see the Act amended to make it an offence to inflict on a wild animal greater cruelty than is normally suffered in nature. It went on to say that there should be a safeguard that coursing and other field sports were conducted under rules which would provide that there would be no greater cruelty than that which occurs in nature.
It said that the rules should be deposited with the Home Secretary, or with an advisory committee set up by the Home Secretary on the particular sport concerned. Does the right hon. Lady the Minister of State, Home Office, still support the Scott Henderson Report? Are the Government prepared to give time for a Bill, prepared by the Government, on the lines of the Scott Henderson Report?
Perhaps hon. Members will look at the table used by the hon. Member for

Walton in support of his Bill and some of the criticisms made of the Waterloo Cup meeting. The real criticism is that on the rare occasions when greyhounds do not kill the hare outright the trainers are slow to kill the hare. Naturally they want to collect their dogs first. Rules could be deposited with the Home Secretary making it an offence, for which one could be prosecuted, not to kill a hare before finally collecting one's dogs. The hon. Member will find that this solution suggested by the Scott Henderson Committee would cover the problem.
All of us in the countryside who are connected with field sport regard this Bill as the thin end of the wedge. We regard it as extremely dangerous that the Government should stir up this controversy again and should depart from the tradition as set up by the Scott Henderson inquiry. I ask hon. Members, before they vote on this issue, to find out something about it. Hon. Members will have noted that The Guardian published a leading article which was misinformed and inaccurate in what it said about the sport, but The Guardian then had the courtesy to send a reporter to the Waterloo Cup meeting and to publish an article which ends with the statement:
…one's reaction to the sport seen as a television film is one thing; one's feelings about it standing in the crisp air of a spring day with the real sounds and smells of the sport and the countryside around one is quite another.
I ask the hon. Member to see it thus.

11.7 a.m.

Mr. William Price: I offer congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) on bringing before the House a Bill which has widespread support in the country. He has outlined the case well and I do not propose to detain the House for more than a few minutes.
I should like to add a small tribute to the organisations, newspapers and individuals who have long campaigned for the abolition of coursing, an activity—I have no intention of describing it as a sport—which cannot be justified on moral, economic or practical grounds. There are those on this side of the House who thank the Government for providing time for the Bill.
Obviously, some hon. Members opposite are bitterly upset. I can understand their feelings. It is not difficult to


understand why they take this attitude. There can be only one reason. I hope that I shall not be uncharitable thus early in my remarks, but they hoped to kill the Bill in the usual way. It does not take a great deal of courage to set greyhounds on to a defenceless hare. It does not take much courage, either, to sit at the back in this House and to shout "Object" on the Motion for Second Reading of a Bill. We shall have the pleasure and privilege of seeing a little later whether those hon. Members have the courage of their convictions in the Division Lobby.
Some hon. Members may not be absolutely clear on what coursing is about. Those from constituencies where coursing is practised want to relieve the ignorance. I accept the description in a leaflet issued by the League Against Cruel Sports, an organisation described as Left-wing. This is what it says about coursing:
Two greyhounds straining at the leash are released by a person called 'the slipper' giving the hare about 30 yards start. The already tired and terrified hare has then to run for its life. It has no other defence. The hare twists and turns at a speed of about 35 m.p.h. in order to escape the faster and fresh greyhounds.
The hare is invariably doomed. It will first be caught by one greyhound, then the other will grab it and the hare becomes a living rope in a macabre tug of war. This may last a couple of minutes or so depending on how long it takes the handlers to reach their dogs. The hare at this point is more often than not still alive and screaming piteously. Writhing in agony, it is taken from the jaws of the dogs and killed, usually by having its neck stretched.
That I believe to be a fair description of what is going on.
There have been suggestions outside the House—we may get them in the House—that the 92 Members who signed my Motion calling for Government action come from the highly industrialised safe Labour seats where no coursing takes place. I do not propose to go through their credentials, but I can answer for my self. I come from a rural constituency and I have a majority of about one-fifth the size of most hon. Members' postal votes. Therefore, perhaps, I have a great deal to lose, but I do not intend to be deterred by the thought that there may be votes to be lost in the countryside.
There was a time, many years ago, when I was filled with hatred for the people who took part in blood sports,

particularly hare coursing. But my attitude changed, as it has changed in many respects as I get older. I feel no hatred at all. My feeling is one of pity. I do not blame those who take part. I believe that society failed to educate them in their responsibilities towards the defenceless, and that Parliament, by refusing to legislate, encouraged them. In many ways, this is a sad debate. It is sad that it should be necessary. It is sad that we should be taking up valuable time, but a tiny minority of people, intent on satisfying their lust, have made it essential if we are to retain our reputation as a nation of animal lovers.
I should like to deal briefly with two of the arguments which will be put forward. It is often claimed that one in ten of the hares is killed. That argument has been totally discredited time and again. The figure is nearer one in four. It is difficult to imagine more revolting methods of killing any animal. It could be argued that the chances of an hon. Member being murdered during the next 12 months are one in 300,000. Is that any justification? This is a very poor argument indeed.
Secondly, it is said that coursing keeps down the hare population. I believe this to be a ludicrous argument. There have been allegations, not always answered, perhaps not always substantiated either, that foxes are being cultivated, and there have been occasions on which they have been imported. All I can say is that it strikes me as curious that there is always an abundance of hares when coursing meetings are held.
Opponents of the Bill have made great play of the fact that none of the 92 Members who signed my Motion, and who support the Bill, accepted the invitation to go to a coursing meeting. I did not accept it, and I am not surprised that my hon. Friends did not accept it. The very thought of coursing is sufficient to turn my stomach over and over, and I suspect that many of my hon. Friends take the same view.
If the coursing fraternity is so keen to open its doors, why does it ban all forms of photography? Why was there the rumpus to which my hon. Friend the Member for Walton referred? I have never been to a bull fight. I have never seen cock fighting. I am content to rely on the fighting which I see in the House.


I have never seen dog baiting. However, I know that Parliament was right many years ago to ban all three. Do hon. Members want any of them to be reintroduced? If the answer is "No"—and I do them the credit of assuming that that is the position—will they tell us in what way bull fighting or cock fighting is more evil than trained greyhounds tearing a hare to pieces? I am prepared to give way to anybody who can answer that simple and straightforward question.
The law should be consistent. I do not believe that there are degrees of cruelty. The hare is entitled to the same protection as, say, the domestic rabbit. They have the same feelings, and they should be given the same rights.
I welcome the Bill because I am opposed to the brutal massacre of innocent animals in the name of sport. But my objection goes deeper than that. The country is faced with an unprecedented crime wave, much of it based on violence to women, elderly people and animals. I am not suggesting for a moment that any of the people who take part in coursing would condone any of those acts. Indeed, I am sure that they would condemn them just as all hon. Members condemn them. But I suggest that, without even knowing it, they are setting an example which others, perhaps of less intelligence, are following.
I believe that violence breeds violence, and that coursing supporters do the country a great disservice. Out of a love and respect for animals will develop a lcve and respect for people, and with it, one would hope, a substantial reduction in crimes of violence. Parliament must show the way. We must make it clear that we shall not tolerate cruelty in any form, whether it be hooligans kicking a cat to death or valuable greyhounds ripping a hare to pieces. My hon. Friend the Member for Walton, with whom I am frequently in disagreement, has earned the gratitude of millions of our people. I wish him and his Bill well.

11.16 a.m.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: I should like to make one or two observations about this small Bill.
I thought that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) presented his case, if not with absolute moderation, then certainly with absolute fairness.

Although I am opposed to the Bill and, in answer to the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price), will have the courage to go into the Lobby against it, I have no reproaches to the hon. Member for Walton for introducing it. Any Member is free to introduce any Measure he likes on the subject nearest to his heart. The hon. Member for Walton, who feels strongly on this subject, has bided his moment and seized his opportunity. I see nothing discreditable about that—quite the reverse.
However, why the Government have involved themselves to the extent of finding time for the Bill is to me a little mysterious. Again, I offer no approaches; I am mystified. It is not immediately clear to me what great matter of principle requires the Home Office to bring up its heavy artillery on a Monday morning. I am sure that the right hon. Lady the Minister of State will not misunderstand that; it is no disrespect to her. Presumably, it is felt that some great matter of principle is involved—perhaps a greater matter of principle than the export of live animals. We shall listen with great interest to what the right hon. Lady has to say.
Perhaps it was felt by the Leader of the House that there is a need for a bit of sport on Monday mornings. Perhaps he felt that this little Bill, suitably boxed, and released under the noses of right hon. and hon. Members, would improve Monday morning meets. I see his point. I do not share the view of my hon. Friends who think it wrong that this controversial Measure should be introduced on a Monday morning. The problem of the Leader of the House is not to keep controversy out of Monday morning sittings, but to inject anything of the smallest interest into them. May I mention, in passing, that at an appropriate moment I shall seek leave to introduce a Bill to prevent the coursing of the Leader of the House by two or more Members of Parliament.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball), who has great knowledge of these matters, has touched on the Bill's principal weakness. It cannot be gainsaid, no matter how ingeniously the hon. Gentleman puts his case against the Scott Henderson Report. I have been refreshing my memory of that Report, and I thought that perhaps


the most interesting lines in it, which have not been quoted, were these:
The reports of the members of the Committee who went to Altcar caused us to revise our initial views very considerably, and the oral evidence which we later heard from the representatives of the Prohibition of Coursing Committee and other animal welfare organisations did not accord with what the members of the Committee saw.
A gap arises between those who see these things and those who hear what others have seen. The hon. Member for Rugby, referring to an article, said that he believed that it was a true description of what was going on. I have no doubt that he spoke with absolute sincerity. But he could have improved his knowledge had he proved less unwilling to go and see for himself. Seeing is not always believing, but it is sometimes a help, and it helps to avoid saying some of the foolish things which have been said in support of the Bill which could not have been said by anyone who had witnessed the sport.
A month or two back I spent a morning—I am not unfamiliar with the sport—with a coursing club, not in my own constituency, but very near it, on Romney Marsh, in Kent. I shall not weary the House with an account of the rather arduous morning I spent in an extremely cold wind, wearing rubber boots and pounding over plough and marsh.
However, I want to venture to record one or two matters arising from the experience which established themselves in my mind. I saw, I suppose, a dozen hares coursed and three or four killed. I absolutely accept that figures vary, and I do not make over much of them. At least, it is fair to say—the hon. Member for Walton himself made this point—that all concerned are principally interested in the skill of the greyhounds and not in the slaughter of the hare.
I must say with absolute honesty that I cannot pretend that I was shocked by anything I saw. I am not insensitive to animal welfare. Indeed, in my own household human beings are in some danger of being displaced by a wide variety of animal life. Nevertheless, even coming from that background, I did not see anything which I felt was a disgrace to national life or a disgrace to those who participate.
Perhaps this club, which is about 100 years old, is rather exceptional. I was

impressed by the discipline which the field master and the slippers imposed, which seemed to me firm. I accept at once that, if the hon. Member for Walton had been with me, he might well have disagreed with all this. No two people see alike.
I must go on to tell the House of one or two deeper impressions which were left on my mind. As I moved on that cold morning rather breathlessly over those lonely marshes, with perhaps a score of others, I found myself wondering how this ancient and rather esoteric pastime had come to outrage those who now write to tell me that it is a blot on our national life and must be wiped out.
On the degree of suffering, there is well room for dispute. In my time I have followed beagles and have been with harriers. It struck me that the degree of suffering for the hare was probably somewhat less than could occur with beagles. I would defend beagling as well. I speak in terms of comparison. I did not think that wild life suffered the indignity or barbarity which is sometimes alleged. But that is arguable.
At least, there can be no argument about this: no one can call it an intrusive pastime. It keeps itself to itself. The many thousands who have written, I have no doubt most sincerely, to the hon. Member in protest do not have this inflicted upon them. They are not compelled day after day to suffer the indulgences of other cruel and rather selfish people.
The second reflection which struck me very forcibly was the margin between what I saw and what some current propaganda tells me what I ought to see. There is a discrepancy between those who actually go coursing and those who write and sometimes read the propaganda. I must say one word about this. For the R.S.P.C.A., which the hon. Member for Walton mentioned, I personally have nothing but the highest respect and regard, whatever its views are on the Bill. It does an enormous amount for animal welfare and it deserves our support through thick and thin, even if it supports a Bill like this.
I cannot see that the same can be said of every other organisation which has been engaged in this small campaign. It


is not very difficult, with judiciously selected pictures, appropriately captioned, to arouse a deep sense of human outrage, particularly on the most emotive subject of animal welfare. All is fair in love, war and propaganda. I will not describe some of the propaganda as mischievous, but it has certainly been misleading.
It can become mischievous when it is taken up thoughtlessly by mass media. Coursing is not only good campaign material. Coursing is also what the producers call "good television". We all know what that means. It is not bad for newspaper circulation, either—"This filthy practice must stop. See page 7".

Mr. William Price: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman so soon after I have spoken. So that an accurate picture could be obtained, does the right hon. Gentleman think that the Waterloo Cup organisers would allow television cameras in?

Mr. Deedes: No doubt other hon. Members can answer the point more specifically. I am anxious not to speak beyond the range of my own knowledge.
I understood that the organisers were open handed indeed in the matter of those they invited. However, there is a limit, bearing in mind the intrusiveness of television, to what one can permit. The House of Commons has taken a view about this. At any rate, it is not particularly difficult nowadays to persuade thousands of people who do not know the country very well that this is some form of barbaric custom steeped in cruelty. It is extremely difficult to prove the converse.
The fact is that in this very heavily urbanised country of ours urban and rural dwellers have points of view which are very, very difficult to reconcile. The countryman is outnumbered today by about 20 to one. The National Opinion Poll figures mentioned by the hon. Member for Walton—75 to 10—are more than accounted for by the fact that the country-man is in a very small minority.
Those who are speaking against the Bill are not doing so out of a sense of political hostility, but because this tiny minority of countrymen who feel passionately in defence of these sports need a voice or two raised on their behalf.

Mr. John Wells: My right hon. Friend mentioned the N.O.P. and

the fact that countrymen are way outnumbered, anyway. Has he any information about the practice of the pollsters in not going near rural areas? I am under the impression that they trot around large towns exclusively.

Mr. Deedes: I have no such information. I find all the statistical basis for this very confusing. I mention this aspect only because the hon. Member for Walton mentioned figures. It has some relationship to the minorities in the country-side.
The countryman has his point of view. When campaigns of this sort, sometimes nourished by prejudice and fed on a little ignorance, arise, he has, or he feels that he has, his grievance. I think that the countryman may be forgiven for wondering whether his indulgence in blood sports, of which this is only one, is really more demoralising than the current public taste for violence, for horror, for sado-masochism, in which entertainers indulge so generously.
The countryman sees television plays of unending violence, beatings up, killings, not of hares, but of human beings, offered for the delectation of old and young, not on remote marshes, but on television screens wide open to millions of people. He is entitled to wonder a little why he should be sought out by the hon. Member for disgrace.
Again, taking a hare's blood is passionately regarded by some as a sin, but the splashing of blood round the ring in a heavyweight boxing championship is thought to be legitimate public amusement. If we had a Bill to prohibit professional boxing, the hon. Member for Walton might very well be in the same Lobby as me, opposing the Bill. I do not believe that we should go into the Lobby with the noble Lady who feels strongly that boxing should be abolished. It is, in a sense, a matter of comparison.
More directly, the countryman sees a great deal of unwitting cruelty inflicted on his own animals——

Mr. Heffer: I was born and lived in a country town until I entered the Royal Air Force, at the age of 19. So I know all about the country; I was brought up in it. I do not want it to be thought that I am introducing the Bill as a "town boy" who has had no experience of country matters.

Mr. Deedes: I think that the hon. Gentleman was not in his place earlier when I said some kind words about the way in which he introduced the Bill. I am not knocking him in the least. However, there are others who have less advantage than he when it comes to discussing these proposals. I am addressing them, not the hon. Gentleman. I look to him because he is the promoter of the Bill.
I was saying that the countryman sees a great deal of unwitting cruelty inflicted on his own animals when urban visitors come and spread their bottles, tins and the rest of it, and much worse, in the woods in his area. If he is anywhere near a town, he will find the woods rendered unsafe for man or beast by the practice of young men descending in cars with shotguns and loosing off indiscriminately at all forms of wild life.
Again, I am not seeking merely to justify a sport by what I say but to give a perspective of the countryman considering the Bill. I wonder if hon. Members know how many animals are wounded and left to die in agony and to rot, because of the promiscuous use of shotguns. Every now and again, alas, human beings are also left like that.
On top of all this, the countryman is told that this ancient sport—I do not stress its antiquity, which is conducted under strict rules, is a disgrace which must be put down. He may be forgiven for feeling that there is a lot of humbug about this, and that is not the least reason why I oppose the Bill. We have become most censorious about other people's recreations. All of us are apt to criticise those who play bingo, those who watch football on Saturday afternoons and those who play polo.
Short of any offence against the law as it stands, the countryman is entitled to his recreations, even if they include bloodsports. They may seem to the sophisticate less enlightened than Saturday afternoon punch-ups at football grounds, or bingo, but they have their adherents who do not regard them as inhuman or wicked.
We shall not reconcile the differences between town and country. In my village we are apt to divide the villagers and the residents. There is a distinction. There are many residents in villages today who,

unlike the hon. Member for Walton and myself, were not brought up in the countryside. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the letters he had received, and no doubt that accounts for some of the correspondence which bears rural postmarks. The policy to which I lend my hand is co-existence between town and country. If we can continue trying to get the Communist countries and our own to co-exist, as the hon. Gentleman is keen to do, surely we could achieve greater co-existence between the countryside and the town. What does co-existence mean? It means saying, "We object to some of the things you do and you object to some of the things we do. But without sacrificing important principles we shall none the less try to get on together."
In this small island, as the town begins to cut bigger swathes all the time into the countryside, that is the only sensible solution; it is certainly the only sensible solution for the Government. That is why it is so daft for the Government to appear to be giving the Bill a fair wind. They should be seeking to reduce the bitterness which undoubtedly exists. I have worked in a Ministry where we dealt with the bitterness of the countryside against the demands of cities and towns. The effects of a Bill like this——

The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Alice Bacon): Although I represent the centre of one of the biggest cities I live in the country, so at least I see both.

Mr. Deedes: The right hon. Lady and her city sometimes have demands to make on the countryside. I am in favour of reducing the bitterness felt between county councils and municipal councils.
Bills like this, which crusade against cruelty and make allegations against the countryman, increase the bitterness the countryman feels towards the town and tend to stiffen his back against all demands. That is very short-sighted and rather sad.
I say to hon. Members, including some of my hon. Friends, if they really feel that they are dealing with a unique, barbaric pastime, which is out of line with all the other country pursuits, they must support the Bill. But I hope that they will not support it simply because, if they do not, their constituents will think badly of them. I am clear where I stand. I


stand for co-existence of town and country. The Bill is inimical and detrimental to that co-existence, and that is why I shall vote against it.

11.35 a.m.

Mr. Victor Yates: On so many occasions when there is a chance to carry out a reform the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) either comes down on the fence or surrounds his arguments with matters which do not seem altogether relevant.
This is a question of opinion. I recognise that there are differences of opinion. The right hon. Gentleman saw three or four animals killed and says that that does not matter very much; it did not affect him. But to some of us it does matter. There is something to be said for killing pests, but not for doing so in sport. I can think of nothing more unsporting than to match two fresh dogs against a hare that is frightened and is chased to its death.
The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball), who is the principal opponent of the Bill, was rather disturbed that hon. Members on this side who had put their names to the Bill had not accepted his invitation to attend a coursing meeting. I am one of them. I have always opposed blood sports. I was asked some years ago to see a deer hunt. I was invited by the Devon and Somerset Staghounds.
I was sure that it would not change my view, but I thought that I would go. They offered to provide me with a horse, and one of my colleagues said, "If ever you ride on a horse, then I shall go on a camel". I am sorry that I could not accept the offer of a horse. The result of my visit was that, instead of being affected, as they might have thought, to be in favour of hunting, I became even more opposed to it.

Mr. Richard Body: The hon. Member was accompanied by me on that occasion. The only difference was that I had a horse and he did not. Fog descended, and neither he nor I saw anything of the stag hunt that morning. Therefore, it is rather hard for him now to say that he left more firmly convinced that it should be opposed.

Mr. Yates: I am not so sure. I did not see the kill on that occasion, but even if the hon. Gentleman felt delight in seeing the deer being cut into pieces and distributed to people in the village, it did not appeal to me. I felt a horror about it all.
I had the opportunity, in Birmingham, of seeing a film of live hare coursing. The hon. Member for Gainsborough said that when one sees the tug of war the hare is killed. But I saw the film of the hare being chased until one dog and then a second had hold of it, and I believe that those pictures are correct. I cannot see any reason for my going to see that all over again; I should only feel more horror. If hon. Members believe that photographs of live hare coursing are not correct, why are the cameras not allowed in? Why is it that the programme of the Waterloo Cup hare coursing, of which I have a copy, says that all rights of photography are strictly reserved?

Sir Henry d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: I am informed that, on the occasion of the last Waterloo Cup, both the B.B.C. and I.T.A. were present.

Mr. Yates: The programme clearly states that all rights of photography are reserved. I have been in communication with the Home Office on the matter. A number of policemen on the course have chased people with cameras.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Yates: I am sorry. I must not keep giving way. Other hon. Members wish to speak.
This programme costs 10s. That is what it costs to see this barbarity. I cannot see why hon. Members should feel, in this day and age, a delight in seeing dogs chase hares and pull them to pieces. This is one of the worst of the blood sports. I feel very strongly about it.
I believe that the hunting of wild animals for amusement is not reconcilable with a humane way of life. I do not believe that it is reconcilable with a Christian order of life, because one of the Christian attributes is mercy and there is no mercy in hare coursing. Perhaps the idea of a Christian order of society does not appeal to the hon. Member who is laughing, but to me and to


many other people coursing is absolutely inhuman.

Mr. John Wells: Mr. John Wells rose——

Mr. Yates: I shall not give way again.
I want to say why I have seen no necessity to go to one of these coursing meetings. I have seen a film and it was horrifying. Coursing may be thrilling to hon. Members opposite, but it is horrifying to me and apparently horrifying to the majority of the House who are prepared to support the Bill.
I support my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). If the Bill goes through, as I believe it will, it will be a further step forward in the march for humanity. I do not believe in any hunting. Coursing is probably the worst of the lot. The fact that animals get killed anyway does not affect the issue of the inhumanity of coursing. One hon. Member has said that hares can be sold for food. That may be so, but why do we want to kill animals just for amusement? This is a very important subject. The Bill should have been introduced long ago. I give it my fullest support.

Mr. David Gibson-Watt: The hon. Gentleman has been making a general attack on field sports. Does this dislike of his also extend to fishing?

Mr. Yates: I do not consider fishing to be in the same category as this subject, which is the only issue before us this morning.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that this is a case of seeing two dogs dragging an animal apart. It is degrading and is pursued just for fun. The hare is a live rope in a tug of war. The time is long overdue when coursing, which is the hunting of creatures to utter exhaustion and death, should be outlawed. It has been called "sportive butchering" and that is precisely what it is.

11.45 a.m.

Mr. James Ramsden: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Victor Yates) raised the question whether hunting or coursing are reconcilable with civilisation or the Christian way of life. I will deal with that aspect later in my speech.
On reading the debates which took place in 1949, the last time that this issue

was raised, I see that Sir Joceyln Lucas was taken to task for not declaring an interest because he kept large numbers of those terriers associated with his name. I, too, had better declare an interest. I do not keep greyhounds, but I do keep foxhounds. I got together a pack in 1962.
It is illustrative of the wide geographical support for field sports and of the growing support for them generally that, in the same year, two new packs were formed, one by myself in the North of England and one by the miners in South Wales. I have not myself been coursing but like others brought up in the country, I have seen hares caught by dogs and I appreciate what happens. I did try to go to a coursing meeting as soon as I knew that the Bill was likely to come up in the House, but the season had ended and it was not possible. No one originally expected that the Bill would ever come on.
I find it rather objectionable—and I gave the Leader of the House notice that I would say this—that the Government should have put a Bill of this character on at a morning sitting. The right hon. Gentleman gave a clear undertaking about his intentions for business at morning sittings. He said that we would not discuss anything controversial. He told us that on 14th December.
Last Thursday, however, he said that because the Bill was allowed an unopposed introduction under the Ten Minute Rule, and because the Motion in support, while signed only by Members on his side of the House, was not opposed by hon. Members on this side of the House, he could not find it in his heart to regard the Bill as controversial. To have used that argument is disingenuous. He will not retain the respect and confidence of the House if he treats it in this way.
I have never been coursing, but probably there is more excuse for me than for hon. Members who have promoted this Bill. I gather that they were all invited to a coursing meeting, but that no one is aware that any of them accepted. That is a pity. They should have done what the Scott Henderson Committee did and availed themselves of an opportunity to see the Wateroo Cup or, at any rate, some other coursing meeting. If they had they would probably have reached the conclusion, as that Committee did, that


the amount of cruelty involved in coursing is considerably exaggerated by the propaganda of those who, like themselves, support this Bill.
Although I share in the tribute that has been paid to the sincerity of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), I think that the Bill is the child of a great deal of inevitable ignorance, because people do not take the trouble to find out the facts for themselves. I accept, also, that he and his hon. Friends want to stop a practice which they regard as cruel. I will take that as the starting point of my argument and will seek to meet him on that basis.
If the Bill goes through as it stands it will not prevent the coursing of hares. It will not stop people going out with a greyhound, or a whippet, or a lurcher, and running hares. They will still be able to do that. What the Bill will prevent—and I wonder whether the promoters realise this—is coursing being carried on, as it now is, under the auspices of the National Coursing Club. The effect will, therefore, be to remove an existing safeguard which ensures that coursing is properly conducted.

Mr. Heffer: The right hon. Gentleman has obviously misread the Bill. It is quite clear that it prevents all coursing whether done under National Coursing Club rules or carried out by a group of individuals. The point is that an organised course will be prevented by the Bill.

Mr. Ramsden: That is exactly my point. The practice, to which objection is taken on grounds of cruelty, of dogs running hares will not be prevented by the Bill. In fact, I believe that there will be more of it. What the Bill will prevent is the organisation of this sport and, therefore, the safeguards at present existing to ensure that the sport is decently and properly carried on——

Mr. James Dance: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that for many years cock fighting has been illegal, yet mains do go on, and under conditions we know nothing about?

Mr. Heffer: Perhaps I may make the position clear. The man who goes out

on a Sunday morning or Saturday afternoon with a dog which chases a hare is not covered by the Bill. That is perfectly understood. But it would be illegal for a number of people, whether or not they were members of a club, to organise a course. For them to say they were not organised and did not belong to a club, or something like that, would be quite irrelevant.
The Bill makes it illegal for them to organise a competitive course. The man whose dog is slipped and runs after a hare is not covered. That sort of thing happens in the countryside all the time, as we know, and it is not intended to be covered.

Mr. Ramsden: That is exactly my point. When this happens, as it will, and I think that there will be more of it, there will be more of what the hon. Gentleman regards as cruelty than there is now. I do not believe that the Bill will do what he wants it to do.
The safeguard at the moment lies in the rules of the National Coursing Club. Coursing meetings have to be held under those rules. People who break the rules are barred from coursing just as a jockey who punishes a horse too much is barred by the Jockey Club. Other similar organisations watch over the interests of other forms of British sport.
The sport of coursing, like other sports, has built into it its own code of proper conduct. To instance one or two points that are relevant, that means that weak hares are not coursed, for the good reason that to do so would be unsporting in terms of the hare and would not provide a proper test as between two dogs, which is the intention. Coursing is not done in conditions in which the hares cannot run. Meetings do not take place if there is snow on the ground, or the ground is very muddy. Hares are coursed on their own ground with which they are familiar and know the escape routes, and when they are not, as it were, at a disadvantage as compared with the dogs.
All these rules are to enforce proper conduct of the sport. If the hare is not killed cleanly by the dogs, and this can happen—and the hon. Gentleman made quite a point of it—it has to be dispatched at once by people who are on the ground for that very purpose. It is the duty of the first person on the scene


to make sure that the hare is so dispatched. If this Bill becomes law, coursing will certainly go on, but without the present safeguards provided by the National Coursing Club.
Someone has said that there are about 4,000 greyhounds—I am told that there are more—at present registered. I do not believe that if the Bill becomes law the owners of these greyhounds will knock them on the head and get rid of them. They will want to continue to course them, and there is nothing in the Bill to prevent it. I believe that if this Bill had been law 10 years ago there would now be more coursing going on than there is, and I will tell the hon. Gentleman why I think so.
At the moment, coursing takes place under the auspices and in accordance with the programme of the National Coursing Club. To begin with, meetings were arranged and programmes were drawn up in accordance, roughly, with the availability of ground on which to course. There are not all that many places where one can course. One cannot use very enclosed country, because coursing is just not possible there.
But, because of a change in the practice of agriculture there is now very much more ground over which people can course—farmers have pulled out hedges, and there is much more arable farming. I therefore honestly think that if the Bill goes through there will be much more coursing. The country is available, people will take out the dogs, and a great deal more cruelty will be involved because of lack of control over the conduct of coursing. I must ask hon. Members: is mat what they intend?
The hon. Member prayed in aid the state of public opinion, and quoted a number of letters. If this Measure goes through, it will prevent a form of activity in which a number—admittedly, a minority, but quite a substantial minority—of our countrymen participate and which they enjoy. Hon. Members may have differing views on the merits of this recreation and people's enjoyment of it, but it goes on, and we should ask ourselves what sort of people engage in it and enjoy it.
It is certainly not the gilded rich. Like the hon. Gentleman, I have had a number of letters on the subject, and if we

had had a little more warning of the Bill's provenance, I would certainly have had a good many more. I should like to quote from one or two of them. I have a postcard which reads:
Please do not let them stop coursing on 1st May. I am an old-age pensioner. I go to Thirsk"—
That is the seat of the Old Yorkshire Coursing Club—
and get 30s. a day for beating. I meet all my old pals, see a lot of sport and have a right good day out. It's all I have to look forward to to pass the winter on. Please do not let them do it".
Let me quote from another letter written to me.
I am writing to ask your help, as there is a Bill coming up in Parliament on May 1st to end greyhound coursing. As I am a coursing enthusiast, and I know you yourself is a great sportsman, please vote against it. The Press have made a great song and dance against it, but most of it is all lies. There are an awful lot of things which are far more cruel than coursing, and far worse. For instance, the filth printed in the Sunday papers and poured out on television.
The latter point may be what the Leader of the House describes as "an intemperate remark", but the fact is that it conveys truth and expresses a sense of values which, I think, have a great deal to commend them.

Mr. John Tilney: Would my right hon. Friend also agree that there are many people in the towns involved, as well as in the country? As was pointed out in the Scott Henderson Report, they like a day in the country.

Mr. Ramsden: Both of these letters were postmarked from my constituency of Harrogate, from people living in the town.
Two things have emerged from this. The first is that if the Bill is proceeded with, hon. Members opposite will be deliberately oppressing—1 do not think that that is too strong a word for it—a minority of their fellow countrymen, and limiting their freedom to enjoy themselves in their own way.
Secondly, and this was well put by my right hon. Friend for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), the Bill is encouraging a very regrettable spirit of town versus country-side. It is stirring up the people in the towns to believe that the country people spend all their time in the practice of barbarous sports. It is stirring up the


country people to think that those in the towns are only concerned with interfering with the country people's recreations. This is happening and it is to be regretted.
This brings me to say a word about the attitude of the Government and the Home Office. The right hon. Lady knows that the Labour Government of 1945 to 1950 went fully into this subject and appointed the Scott Henderson Committee which reported on this. Hitherto, the present Government have been prepared to stand on the conclusions of mat report. I hope that they will stand on them now and that the right hon. Lady will assure us on this. Having given time to the Bill, we are anxious to know whether the Government have changed their position.

Miss Bacon: I hope to catch Mr. Speaker's eye in a few moments, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could be a little more specific when he says that he hopes the Government still stand by the Report. Could he point to any announcement by the Government that any Government had accepted the views of the Scott Henderson Report.

Mr. Ramsden: No, but this morning I looked up an Answer given by the right hon. Lady on fox hunting. In that Answer she used, almost verbatim, an extract from the Scott Henderson Report, expressing its conclusions. I take it that the Government stand by it? Perhaps she can explain the position. We want to hear of the position of the Government and the Home Office.
When I was Minister at the War Office I used to thank my stars for the Home Office because it seemed that there was at least one Government Department which was more accident prone and more liable to get into trouble than the War Office. The Home Office has, whether it likes it or not, an endless succession of troubles on its plate. The crime wave has been referred to; there is drugs, drink, aliens, strip-tease, gambling, a whole lot of things, all of which are liable to blow up at any moment into a first-class row. In addition, the Home Office is the great Department of State which has the prime responsibility of seeing that people accept happily our system of government and live peaceably under it.
When there is a minority of people who are prepared to live peaceably and

enjoy their own recreations, giving no one any trouble and not getting involved in crime, and if the Home Office sets about stirring those people up, sponsoring an interference with their liberties and recreation, then as my right hon. Friend for Ashford said, I think that the position is daft. I hope that this is the view that the Home Office will take.
I promised that I would face the question of cruelty raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Victor Yates). This is fundamental to the whole of the argument. If one can state the problem, one can do so as follows: how far is a man, who is a being in a higher order of creation, justified in doing things to members of a lower order of creation, involving them, perhaps, in suffering in the course of obtaining his own recreation?
This is the question which has exersised people, and it is one that we ought to face. If I felt that one could answer it by saying that a man is not so justified, then there would be grounds for supporting the Bill and for prohibiting, not only this field sport, but others, including shooting and fishing and for prohibiting other practices, going far wider than field sports, such as the killing of animals for food, and some of the practices of modern husbandry.
The fact is that one cannot give such a plain and simple answer to this question. During the long time that this problem has been debated, a clear, straightforward answer which would command universal acceptance has never been given. This has always been a matter for conscience and debate. One of the difficulties about reaching a clear-cut answer arises from the amount of cruelty which is to be found in nature. These hares at Altcar and the other coursing grounds, if the Bill goes through, will not have their lot made much more agreeable than it is now. If they increase in number they will be controlled by shooting or some other way. If that does not happen, next year or the year after, there will be a hard winter with snow on the ground, they will not get their proper food, they will weaken and fall a prey to a fox, a stoat, or a cat.
There is the Blue Mountain hare in Scotland which seems to be expressly created to be the food of the Golden Eagle. A more horrible death than being


carried off alive in the talons of a Golden Eagle it would be difficult to imagine. Yet this is a bird which Parliament protects. The ordinary course of nature produces some baffling instances when one tries to face these problems. Even if the Bill were better drafted from the promoters' point of view, it would not improve the lot of the hare.

Mr. Peter Mills: Has my right hon. Friend ever listened to the sound of, or watched, a stoat attacking a rabbit?

Mr. Ramsden: I have, and what my hon. Friend says reinforces my argument. But from the point of view of those who favour the Bill, this is not the point. However cruel nature is—and she is cruel—is man justified in adding to it by participating, to some extent, in it? This is the question which must be faced.
The hon. Member for Walton concluded his speech with a quotation from the words of one eminent divine. But the fact is that philosophers and divines have answered this question in opposite senses through the ages, no matter what Church they belonged to or the philosophy to which they subscribed. St. Hubert said one thing, St. Francis said another. Hon. Members have to make up their minds before which saint they light their candle. There is no consensus.
This is not a question which the House of Commons—I say this with great respect—can decide satisfactorily. Parliament is not at its best when handling such questions. Essentially, it is a question for each person's individual conscience. It is a choice which anyone who decides to take part in field sports and to enjoy them has to make for himself. I do not think that the hon. Member for Walton or i, or any of us, has the right to make it for them. If we attempt to make it for them, we are trespassing on the ground which belongs to individual liberty and individual freedom of choice. I do not think that we should so trespass.
I hope that the Bill will not pass. It will not achieve its object or the wishes of its promoters. It will oppress the liberties of a minority of our fellow countrymen. It will put in peril a much larger minority. When one of my hon. Friends said that the Bill was the thin

end of the wedge for those who participate in other field sports, he was applauded by hon. Members opposite. Many people are anxious in case the Bill should go through. It raises a question which, in all humility, I do not believe Parliament is competent to decide. It is a matter for the individual conscience of those who see fit to participate in these sports. I hope that the House will reject the Bill.

12.14 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Alice Bacon): It might be helpful to the House if I were to say a few words about the Government's attitude to the Bill and about my own views.
As hon. Members will recall, the Leader of the House announced on 20th April that the Government proposed to allocate time to the Bill today to facilitate proceedings. This has been criticised this morning. At any rate, it seems to have achieved one thing. I seem to have had more than my fair share of business on Monday mornings, and I have sat in the House and gazed at empty benches. At least the Bill has brought hon. Members to the House on a Monday morning.
I never thought that I would hear hon. Members criticising the Government for giving more time to Private Members' Bills. [HON. MEMBERS: "Come off it."] It is no use saying "Come off it". The Government decided recently to give time to two Private Members' Bills. One was a Bill of the hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell), who had taken over the Lord Chief Justice's Bill, which was introduced in the House of Lords. It was only because it managed to be reported and get a Third Reading on a Friday afternoon that it, too, was not given Government time on a Monday morning.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: Since the right hon. Lady is advancing this argument, can she tell us why the Bill produced by her hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) did not get priority over the Bill we are discussing? The hon. Lady's Bill dealt with the question of children's nurseries, which, in the view of many hon. Members, is of high priority.

Miss Bacon: I am very interested in that Bill, but as far as I recall—I speak


without the dates before me—the announcement to give this Bill time on a Monday morning was made before my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough had permission to bring in her Bill.
The Government's decision does not mean that at this stage the Government are giving, or are committed to giving, full and formal support to the Bill. For reasons which I shall mention later, the Government's attitude at this stage is one of neutrality. There will be a free vote on this side of the House, with no Government Whips on, as is usual with Private Members' Bills. However, there seemed to the Government to be good reasons why discussion of the Bill should not be indefinitely delayed.
May I deal with what I thought was the rather unfair speech of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball). Perhaps he did not mean it to be unfair. I was very surprised that he criticised me for not meeting earlier the deputation from the National Coursing Club. He will know that I have met two deputations within months from this club, and I went out of my way at very great personal inconvenience to meet it before this morning. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not realise, although I am sure that nearly every other hon. Member realises, that the Home Office Ministers have been very heavily engaged in the last few weeks in Government business in the House and in Committee. The club could have met an official of the Home Office earlier, but I went out of my way—perhaps a week or two after it requested to see me—to see it before the Second Reading this morning.
As I say, there has been clear evidence of wide and continuous public interest in this Measure, and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), who presented his case very fairly this morning, received a good deal of support when he asked leave to bring in the Bill.
The Bill is short. It is simple in construction. It is confined in scope to a particular activity, and it seems to the Government to be soundly drafted for the purpose in view. Above all, the issue for decision is relatively straightforward, as I will try to explain.

Mr. Richard Sharples: The right hon. Lady announced to the House on 23rd June that a review of field sports was taking place. The House would be interested to know whether the views which she is about to express are as a result of that review.

Miss Bacon: If the hon. Gentleman allows me to make my speech, I will deal with that. I should prefer to make my speech in my own way.
The Scott Henderson Committee has been referred to today. It has been mentioned that it examined the case for a number of field sports in its Report on Cruelty to Wild Animals in 1951. On several occasions I have read with great care the Committee's remarks about hares and hare coursing. The Committee dealt, first, with the need for control of hares, and in paragraph 250 of its Report it stated:
Hares are regarded as a pest to agriculture only if they become too numerous. When this occurs they cause considerable damage to root crops (especially sugar-beet), brassica and, to a limited extent corn, so that control of them becomes necessary in the interests of agriculture. Hares are always regarded as a pest to forestry because they nip off the tips of newly planted trees, both hardwood and softwood. Consequently control is of greater importance to the Forestry Commission and those engaged in forestry than it is to the Agricultural Departments and farmers".
Turning to methods of control, the Committee mentioned that the normal methods are shooting, netting, snaring and trapping—shooting being by far the commonest method used. The Committee recommended in paragraph 252—
The field sports of hare-hunting and coursing are also regarded by some of their supporters as exercising a degree of control though neither is considered to be very effective.
The Committee returned to this point in paragraph 280, pointing out that hares were not controlled by the coursing that takes place at, for example, Altcar, where hares are far more numerous than they would be if their numbers were controlled by ordinary methods.
The balance of the argument about control seems to tilt very heavily against hare-coursing as making any real contribution. I must make it clear to the House that the Agriculture Departments and the Forestry Commission have no objection whatever to the Bill looked at from the point of view of control of


hares. Therefore, today we can ignore the question of dealing with hares as pests in considering the proposals in the Bill. That leaves the question of cruelty.
The view of the Scott Henderson Committee was that, where a justifiable activity necessarily involved a degree of suffering, cruelty did not arise unless more suffering was inflicted than was necessary in the pursuit of that activity. When the Committee came to apply this test to field sports, it considered that there would be justification in interfering with a sport in one or other of the following circumstances. The Committee said, first, in cases where the sport contributes to control interference would be justified if the amount of suffering inflicted is greater than would be involved in the use of alternative methods of control. That case is not relevant here, because, as I have explained, the hare coursing with which the Bill is concerned does not contribute to control.
The other case where the interference with the sport would, in the view of the Scott Henderson Committee be justified, is where a sport does not serve control and gives rise to more than a degree of suffering. The basic issue is, therefore: does coursing involve more than a slight degree of suffering?
If I have read the Report correctly, it reached the following conclusions. These conclusions have been mentioned this morning. They appear to be in some respects slightly contradictory. The Report said, first, that coursing involves no more suffering than the shooting of hares as ordinarily practised. Secondly, the risk of cruelty would arise where the coursing made no contribution to control. Thirdly, the degree of cruelty was not sufficient to justify prohibition. However, as has been pointed out by one hon. Member, the Committee also recommended that all wild animals should be brought within the provision of the Protection of Animals Act, with special provisions to the effect that hunting, coursing, capture, destruction or attempted destruction of any wild animal should be lawful while conducted under rules approved by a Minister and not accompanied by the infliction of unnecessary suffering
I see the hon. Member for Gainsborough nodding his head, but he knows as well as I do that this is a very diffi-

cult task to perform. To try to provide rules, whilst permitting the sport to continue, to ensure that there is not unnecessary cruelty has proved to be almost impossible. That is why up till now this part of the Report of" the Scott Henderson Committee has not been followed by legislation.
On the other hand, the Committee felt it right to recommend that the National Coursing Club should take steps to ensure the immediate dispatch of a hare if still alive after being seized by the dogs. More obscurely—this is where the Report is slightly contradictory in these two paragraphs—the Committee added that it made no specific recommendations as to the continuation of this sport.
I want to draw particular attention to the Committee's conclusion that coursing causes no more suffering than shooting. In itself, this does not tell us much about the amount of suffering involved. The important point is that the suffering involved in coursing is unnecessary and that it has no value for control.
It may be suggested that the Committee's review of the sport is now out of date and there should be a further inquiry. I doubt whether this is necessary, for the Report does ample justice to the arguments on either side.
I have never seen hare coursing and make no claims whatever to be able to advise the House about the suffering involved. I have read the Report and the literature which no doubt has been sent to other hon. Members. I am well aware that sentimentality—I am not saying that this is in any way wrong; where would the House be without sentiment—often complicates questions of protection of animals. However, I have been impressed by the view of the Scott Henderson Committee that the risk of cruelty is significant if officials are not in a position to intervene once a hare is seized.
It has seemed to me that in the ordinary circumstances of this sport there is, to say the least, a very small margin indeed for the unknown factor to transform a slight degree of suffering into something much more intense and objectionable. Taking that point, together with the point that coursing is not necessary for the control of hares, I personally


am in support of the Bill, as is my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
We listened to a rather extraordinary speech, as I thought, by the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) who often makes good speeches. He said that this sport had this to be said for it, that it did not intrude on other people who were not engaged in the sport. Was he, then, saying that cruelty is all right provided that it is done in private and not in public? That is what it seemed that his argument was.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that every night on television we could see the blood of boxers who were taking part in boxing. That is so, but boxers go into the ring voluntarily; they can please themselves whether they go into the ring and are punched about the head and on the jaw so that their blood flows. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman's speech was not up to his usual standards.

Mr. Ramsden: I did not hear the right hon. Lady perfectly earlier. Was she saying that the Home Secretary was personally in support of the Bill?

Miss Bacon: Yes, I said that both I and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary were personally in favour of the Bill, without committing the Government in any way.

Mr. Tilney: Before the right hon. Lady concludes her speech, will she say exactly what is happening about the review of field sports generally?

Miss Bacon: I am coming to that, if only hon. Members would be a little less anxious. It may be objected—it has been so objected during the debate—that to deal with hare coursing by itself is illogical, that we should deal with all the blood sports. As I have said in the House——

Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I ask for your guidance. Am I allowed to move that the Question be put this morning?

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Heffer: If not, will you tell me what the position is, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): I have no power to accept a Motion for Closure. At half-past twelve, if the debate is not concluded, it will be adjourned until another day.

Miss Bacon: I am afraid, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have made the mistake of thinking that we had until one o'clock.
I was coming to the point about the review of field sports which is taking place. It may be argued that to deal with hare coursing by itself is illogical and that many other sports involve suffering to animals. That would be a good argument at any time for doing nothing because we cannot do everything, and we are having this review——

It being half-past Twelve o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.

REGISTRAR OF FRIENDLY SOCIETIES (TRADE UNION FUNDS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Charles R. Morris.]

12.30 p.m.

Mr. John Page: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am hopeful that when hon. Gentlemen hear the important subject of this debate, they will not fly from it with the speed with which they are doing now. I want to discuss the position of the Registrar of Friendly Societies in connection with the collection of contributions for trade union political funds and, in doing so, I want to suggest how the Registrar might be given further powers of inspection and control over the spending of general and political funds for political objectives.
I am not suggesting that the whole system of contracting in should be changed to contracting out, though I believe that opinion in the country, particularly among the large and growing number of trade unionists who do not support the present Government and the Labour Party, will bring overwhelming pressure on the next Conservative Government to make a change from contracting in to contracting out.
It is perhaps relevant at this stage to mention that, in 1926, under the system of contracting out, 77 per cent. of trade


unionists supported the political funds of their unions. By 1943, under the system of contracting in, the figure had dropped to 43 per cent. Now, again under contracting out, it has risen to approximately 81 per cent. There is much evidence of dissatisfaction amongst trade unionists who do not support the Labour Party, but find themselves still paying the political levy.
Largely through the activities of national and local committees of Conservative trade unionists in the constituencies and in the factories, 18 or 19 per cent. of trade unionists are now contracted out of the political levy. However, it is generally agreed that at least one in three trade unionists vote Conservative, and so those figures show that about 15 per cent. of those who could be expected to contract out do not do so. I believe that the main reason is apathy. It is partly due to fear of discrimination and intimidation within their unions and, most important of all, because they do not understand their rights of contracting out under the Trade Union Act rules.
Earlier this morning, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant) was given unopposed permission to bring in a Bill dealing with this aspect, saying that an application form for union membership should always have attached to it or coming with it an application form for contracting out. Only a small number of unions carry out that practice, and I should like to draw the attention of hon. Members to the form supplied by the Association of Supervisory Staffs, Executives and Technicians.
Accompanying the application form for union membership there is a political fund exemption notice and a covering letter signed by Mr. Clive Jenkins, who knows a lot about this kind of thing, saying:
Dear Applicant,
Here is your Membership Application. On the back is a form we are most anxious you should not fill in. It is the political fund contracting-out form.
The letter goes on:
"We want a programme in Parliament for supervisors and technicians which supplements our collective bargaining work.
I believe that that letter constitutes prima facie a breach of the political fund rules, and I look forward to hearing of an A.S.S.E.T. applicant testing the

validity of this document with the Registrar of Friendly Societies on the ground that undue pressure is imposed at the time of application for union membership.
There are millions of trade unionists who do not know about their rights to contract out and, in that connection, I wish to quote from a few letters which have been received by a Conservative councillor in Yorkshire who wrote a letter to his local paper last November on the subject to contracting out. He had 30 or 40 replies, all of them asking for contracting out forms. One of them, from Middlesbrough, said:
The contracting out forms: hardly anyone who I came in contact with had ever heard of these forms. They are not advertised by the shop stewards, and nearly all I spoke to welcomed them.
I have another letter signed "Shop Steward—not Labour", with his name. He says:
I will be most pleased if you will send me one hundred or more contracting out forms for distribution. There are nearly four hundred members in the branch of the Transport and General Workers Union which I also am a member of, and I know that a good percentage of us do not wish to support the Labour Party in any way. Our secretary insists that he has no contracting out forms, and is not bothered about getting any. However, if you send me some, I will see that they go to the proper people.
Another, from Redcar, says:
The forms required are for myself and friends who are members of the A.E.U. We have been unable to obtain these forms from our secretary for various excuses.
Another, from Croft-on-Tees, says:
Would you please let me have some forms for distribution? We are most grateful for your information. We did not realise that part of our weekly contribution was used as levy. We are still not aware what percentage is taken.
Yet another from Middlesbrough says:
Will you please forward me about ten contracting out forms… Seeing as I am a member of the Conservative Party, I see no reason to support the Labour Party by paying a political levy, and a number of my friends think the same.
I have many more letters in that vein which I should like to quote, but there is not time. I believe that this is a response from only a very small number of people in answer to one letter in one local paper.
There is another growing practice which is called the "check-off" system


by which an employer collects trade union dues and political levy contributions at source. Those who have contracted out have to pay at the time and reclaim later, except in the Civil Service unions, where the amount of the levy is repaid in advance. This seems to be a practice——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I must remind him and the House that in these Adjournment debates only matters for which there is some Ministerial responsibility may be raised. It is out of order to refer to matters which involve changes in legislation.

Mr. Page: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am pointing out the position of the Registrar of Friendly Societies and suggesting that steps should be taken to give the Registrar greater powers——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No. It is out of order in an Adjournment debate to make proposals which involve legislation. Adjournment debates are confined to matters of administration. The hon. Gentleman can argue that the Registrar of Friendly Societies is not carrying out his duties properly under existing law, but he cannot make proposals for changes in the law.

Mr. Page: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and will merely add that the Registrar of Friendly Societies is not sufficiently making known his powers to members of trade unions, to whom he is the appellant if they feel that there is something wrong in the handling or collection of the political levy. I suggest, therefore, that the Registrar be given power to advertise in factories and elsewhere where trade unionists work so that their attention is drawn to their ability to appeal against what might be considered the insufficient production of contracting out forms.
Attention should also be drawn to the Registrar's existing powers under the 1913 Act. The Minister should discover whether the Registrar is in a position to intervene in the check-off system, whereby a member of a trade union may be asked to pay the political levy and reclaim it later.
I turn from the system of collection to the spending of these funds. It appears

that the only objectives on which political funds may be spent are in connection with the election and support of Parliamentary candidates. If that is correct, it follows that a large, though unspecified, amount of the general funds of trade unions may be paid to a political party, be it the Labour Party or Conservative Party. Does the Registrar of Friendly Societies consider that further information should be given, in the accounts of trade unions, about these political funds and the objectives on which they are spent? It seems ludicrous that a payment to Labour Party funds should be considered a "non-political donation" and that that position should continue without being sufficiently appreciated by many trade unionists.

Mr. E. S. Bishop: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that industry and commerce make vast donations to the Conservative Party without consulting shareholders, employees, or anybody else about them?

Mr. Page: Under the Companies Bill, which is now going through Parliament, it will be necessary for companies to explain in detail the size of any donation made to charities and political funds.
I urge the Minister to ask the Registrar of Friendly Societies whether he would find it more convenient for trade union accounts to contain exact details of payments to political parties and other amounts used for political purposes. At present, this money is given for "charities and other donations" and appears as a global figure in the accounts. I should have thought that the Registrar would wish to have fuller information, at least parallel with that envisaged under the Companies Bill.
I am not raising this matter in an anti-trade union frame of mind, but merely campaigning against the support of political parties by those who do not believe in the objectives of those parties. I fear that many trade unionists have insufficient knowledge of their powers of appeal to the Registrar of Friendly Societies in connection with the collection of funds for political purposes. We need modern, forward-looking, production-minded trade unionists. I urge them to make a final gesture of contracting out; that is, their affiliation to the Labour Party.

12.46 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Niall MacDermot): The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) said that he was not campaigning against trade unions, but I must leave hon. Members to form their own opinion about that. He prefaced his remarks by informing us that he was in favour of the contracting in, rather than the contracting out, system and hoped that the next Conservative Government would change the law accordingly. The Conservatives had 13 years in office but decided not to change the law. The hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) introduced a ten-minute-rule Bill directed to this point in December last, but his proposal was decisively rejected by the House, by 281 to 131 votes.
The hon. Member for Harrow, West referred to a notice which, he said, had been given by A.S.S.E.T. to joining members when being supplied with a copy of the contracting out form. That, in fact, goes further than the legal requirement, as I shall show, on the part of that union. I therefore cannot see how there can be anything wrong or contrary to the rules in A.S.S.E.T. taking that step or in A.S.S.E.T. telling joining members that the union strongly supports the Labour Party and hopes that they will not contract out.
I come to the question of the obligations of unions, particularly in relation to the supplying of these forms. The Registrar of Friendly Societies has no power to require information or to lay down rules otherwise than empowered by the trade union Acts, particularly the Trade Union Act, 1913, Section 5(1) of which states:
A member of a trade union may at any time give notice … that he objects to contribute to the political fund of the union, and …notice shall be given to the members of the union acquainting them that each member has a right to be exempt from contributing to the political fund of the union, and that a form of exemption notice can be obtained by or on behalf of a member either by application at or by post from the head office or any branch office of the union or the office of the Registrar of Friendly Societies.
That provision is embodied in the model rules provided by the Registrar and they are followed by unions, only with such alterations as the Registrar approves.
The model rules require that a copy of the rules shall be supplied forthwith to every new member of a union and also that a copy shall be supplied to any member at his request. Thus, every person joining a union, and every member of a union on request, has a copy of these rules. They tell him of his right to contract out and how he can get a copy of the form from the union or—if he does not wish to get involved or if there is any argument with the union—direct from the Registrar of Friendly Societies. These rules also tell him that if he is aggrieved in any way and thinks that there has been any breach of the rules, he may complain to the Registrar of Friendly Societies, who may make such order for remedying the breach as he thinks fit. If need be, that order can be enforced in the county court.
I cannot see that there is any requirement or need for these provisions to be further advertised. As a result of the rules, they are and must be brought to the attention of every joining member. I do not think that the Registrar would want power to advertise these matters in factories. After all, he is in judicial position in relation to these rules and has to receive and hear complaints as they may be made.
The hon. Gentleman asked for fuller disclosure of how the moneys were spent. The power of the Registrar to make rules in these matters is contained in Section 16 of the 1871 Act which requires a registered union to send to the Registrar a general statement—and those are the words—of the
receipts, funds, effects, and expenditure …and shall show separately the expenditure in respect of the several objects of the trade union, and shall be prepared and made out up to such date, in such form, and shall comprise such particulars, as the registrar may from time to time require.

Mr. John Page: Would it be possible for the Registrar under the law as it stands to ask for the particulars to be expanded? Could he ask for wider details of expenditure, and could those details be published?

Mr. MacDermot: The hon. Gentleman has already asked me that question and I am about to seek to answer it. The annual return form calls for expenditure on political objects to be specified, and this is done under general headings to the


satisfaction of the Registrar. If he wanted more detailed particulars, he could ask for them. In fact, most unions publish in their accounts, which are distributed to their members, information in much greater detail than is called for or required in the annual returns.
Information about grants to charities and so on from the general fund are included in the returns, along with fees to Congress and trades councils. There is not, that I am aware of, any pressure or requirement, or general body of feeling, that more detailed information ought to be given. Certainly the Registrar has not thought it necessary to call for more detailed returns.
I imagine that any member of a trade union who wants particulars of the charities and other bodies which have been supported is able to get them. The suggestion that members of trade unions either can or do out of the general fund make contributions to political parties is wholly misconceived. That would be quite wrong and is not done.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: The hon. and learned Gentleman will find evidence in the discussions on the Companies Bill to show trade union support for political objectives out of general funds.

Mr. MacDermot: The hon. Gentleman is a little wide in his phraseology. His hon. Friend's suggestion was that contributions could be made directly to the Labour Party or the Conservative Party. That is erroneous, as I am saying. There are other bodies, which no doubt both companies and trade union support, which some might think to have a political content in their work, but that is quite a different matter. What is being suggested is that in some way statutory requirements about political funds either can or are being—I am not quite sure what the suggestion is—sidestepped by the making of contributions direct from the general fund. All I am making clear is that that cannot be done.
I wonder why the hon. Gentleman is making these suggestions not only about the specific point, but about the whole subject. What complaints has he received? He has read letters from members saying that they were not aware

of their rights. I have pointed out that they must have been told their rights when joining the union. They may not have bothered to read the rules which were given to them, but that is a different matter and it is open to those who share the hon. Gentleman's view to take such action as they think right to try to publicise it further I do not see how the machinery of the law could do more than put in people's hands a clear printed statement of the rules setting out all their rights.
There are more than 1,500,000 trade unionists who have contracted out, and the evidence given by the Registrar to the Royal Commission on Trade Unions was that some 20 to 30 letters of complaints a year were received. Of those, he said, some were obviously misconceived while the majority of the rest were satisfactorily settled after correspondence with the union. Complaints necessitating a formal hearing, he said, did not average more than one or two in a year.
That is the sum total of the complaints. What is the mischief which the hon. Gentleman is trying to remedy? What is his evidence that any such mischief exists? I suggest that the only conclusion to be drawn is that it is the hon. Gentleman who is trying to create mischief where none exists.

12.58 p.m.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) was perfectly justified and should be fully supported in his complaints. It is of the utmost importance that the rules relating to the political levy should be administered scrupulously fairly and fearlessly, and there is a body of opinion in the country which thinks that that does not happen.
My hon. Friend brought forward letters from trade unionists who said that they did not know that they could contract out of the political levy. From time to time, hon. Members must receive letters of that type in their postbag, as I do. I try to explain to my constituents what their legal rights are. There is no doubt that among the 10 million people employed in factories, there are probably thousands, if not tens of thousands, who do not know their rights, who have never


had the opportunity of having their rights explained to them.

Mr. MacDermot: How can the hon. Gentleman say that they have never had an opportunity of having their rights explained to them when they must have been given a copy of the rules setting out, in very simple and clear English, what their rights are?

Mr. Gresham Cooke: The hon. and learned Gentleman is a lawyer and has great opportunity to study the small print throughout the rules, but he cannot say that every person who works in a factory will study the small print on the back of the rule book.
This matter has to be highlighted because it has been highlighted in the debates on the Companies Bill the other way round. Companies are to have to make an exact disclosure of contributions which they make not only to political parties, but to all sorts of what might be called fringe political organisations, and the amounts will have to appear in every company's accounts, and at least a total given to the shareholders. If there is any doubt among the public that this provision is not being fairly applied throughout industry and on both sides of industry——
It being One o'clock, DEPUTY SPEAKER suspended the sitting till half-past Two o'clock, pursuant to Order.

Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SECURITY

Rights and Entitlements

Mr. Molloy: asked the Minister of Social Security what arrangements exist between her Department and local authorities to acquaint people of their rights and entitlements in the sphere of social security.

The Minister of Social Security (Miss Margaret Herbison): Local authorities help to publicise the cash benefits administered by my Department. In turn, we give assistance to local authorities who wish to give publicity to the health and welfare services which they offer. In addition, my local officers keep in touch with the local authorities' officers responsible for health and welfare services.

Mr. Molloy: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Many people are aware of the good relations which exist between my right hon. Friend's Department and the authorities. What other facilities has she in mind to assist local authorities in the work of her Department?

Miss Herbison: Where a local authority wishes to draw attention to local health and welfare services, my Department is very ready to arrange to include a suitable notice with the award notice. A hundred local authorities have accepted this, of which the Ealing authority is one. I shall be delighted if more take advantage of this offer.

Sickness Benefit (Personal Case)

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Social Security, as she has disallowed the claim for sickness benefit from Mr. S. H. Langford, of 32 Abbey Foregate, relating to his contribution record for the year ended 5th June, 1966, and as the appropriate contribution card, signed by Mr. Langford, who has been an insured person for 40 years, was deposited in the receiving box on the gate of her office in Shrewsbury by Mrs. Langford, what form of acknowledgment is sent on receipt of completed cards.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Social Security (Mr. Norman Pentland): When a stamped card is sent in for exchange, a new card issued at the time of the exchange is accepted as sufficient evidence of the surrender of the expired card, but an official receipt is issued if requested. I have written to the hon. Member about the individual case.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Will the hon. Gentleman accept my thanks for having reached a sensible decision on this case?

Mr. Pentland: Thank you very much.

Supplementary Pensions

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Social Security whether she will amend her Regulations so that persons over 21 years of age who are entitled to supplementary pensions do not lose this right if they rent accommodation from their own family and pay a contribution to their parents who have no legal obligations to support them.

Mr. Pentland: There is no need for such an amendment. Living with his parents does not prevent a claimant from receiving benefit.

Lorry Drivers (Unemployment Benefit)

Mr. Park: asked the Minister of Social Security if she will amend the
National Insurance Regulations, so that lorry drivers, deprived of their licences for traffic offences committed in a private capacity whilst driving their own cars, will no longer be liable to lose unemployment benefit.

Miss Herbison: No, Sir. Whether a traffic offence which leads to a person's dismissal from his employment constitutes misconduct for the purpose of disqualification for unemployment benefit is properly a question for determination on the facts of the individual case by the independent adjudicating authorities who decide all claims for unemployment benefit.

Mr. Park: I thank my right hon. Friend for her Answer. Does she not appreciate the injustice of a situation in which for an offence committed in his own time and totally unrelated to his employment a lorry driver may lose his claim to unemployment benefit for a


period of up to six weeks? Will she look at the Regulations and, if possible, amend them so that in future unemployment benefit shall be withheld only for offences directly connected with a person's occupation?

Miss Herbison: I assure my hon. Friend that I have looked very closely at this because one of the trade unions concerned met me to discuss the matter. It is always very difficult to define misconduct. Of course, this applies not only to this kind of case but to other cases. That is why we have the appeal machinery. I can only say to my hon. Friend, as I said to the trade union concerned, that the man should always exercise his rights of appeal right up to Commissioner level.

Earnings and Contributions

Mr. Longden: asked the Minister of Social Security whether, in order to relate unemployment and sickness benefits to earnings, she intends also to relate contributions to earnings.

Miss Herbison: Earnings-related supplements to unemployment and sickness benefits are already financed from earnings-related contributions. The National Insurance contribution arrangements as a whole are being studied as part of the Government's comprehensive review of the social security scheme.

Mr. Longden: I thank the Minister for that reply. It is now as long ago as 22nd November, 1965, when she said that she hoped it would not be very long before she could tell us what the new scheme is. Will she see that contributions are related to benefits, because otherwise the insurance principle will become weaker than it now is?

Miss Herbison: I can give the assurance to the hon. Member that when we finally consider what the contributions should be we shall give very serious thought to making them earnings-related.

Working Wives (Benefits)

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Minister of Social Security if she will take action to give working wives, with husbands receiving pensions or other social security payments, the full single person's benefit in unemployment or sickness.

Miss Herbison: This is only one aspect of the special position of married women in the National Insurance scheme, which is being examined in our general review.

Mr. Roberts: While I am thankful that this is under review, would not my right hon. Friend agree that this is yet another example of discrimination between women? How many women are in this position? Can she give any logical reason why when a woman is the major bread-winner she should be treated differently from a male?

Miss Herbison: Where the woman is the breadwinner and the husband is benefiting under her contributions, she is treated in exactly the same way as a man. On the question of married women generally, they have the right that no man or single woman has of opting out of the insurance scheme altogether. We find that of 4½ million married women at work only about 1·1 million pay the full insurance contribution.

Rate Rebates (Supplementary Benefits)

Mr. Hamling: asked the Minister of Social Security what representations have been made to her about the impact of supplementary benefits on the receipt of rate rebates; and what reply she has sent.

Mr. Pentland: A number of suggestions have been made that people receiving supplementary benefit ought to be given rate rebates. The replies have explained that this would mean double provision, since the full rates are allowed for in assessing the amount of supplementary benefit.

Mr. Hamling: Is my hon. Friend aware mat in a recent case the manager of the Social Security office in Woolwich was most helpful, as he normally is, but will my hon. Friend take note that a lot of members of the public are not aware of their rights under the heading of rate rebates?

Mr. Pentland: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said, but whenever a person receiving supplementary benefit would be better off with a rate rebate instead of supplementary benefit he is always advised of this by our officials.

Mr. Winnick: Is my hon. Friend aware that I recently wrote to the Minister about some cases in Croydon and that there is still a certain amount of dissatisfaction because council tenants in a few cases are receiving less than they originally could? Will this matter in Croydon be looked into?

Mr. Pentland: Yes, certainly I will look into that.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Has the hon. Gentleman had representations from ex-Service men's bodies about taking account of war pensions in full for the purposes of disqualifying applicants for rate rebates?

Mr. Pentland: I must say no without committing myself too far, but I should like to check on that.

Single Women

Mr. Hamling: asked the Minister of Social Security what representations have been made to her since the beginning of March about the payment of a special social security benefit to single women with adult dependants; and what reply she has sent.

Miss Herbison: Apart from the deputation which my hon. Friend brought to see me on 9th March, I have received four letters on this subject. In reply I have drawn attention to the social security benefits already available to women in these circumstances who need them and also to their dependants.

Mr. Hamling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was helpful in his Budget on this subject and we hope that very soon she will emulate his progressive attitude?

Miss Herbison: I think the concession which has been made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will be helpful in many cases, but my hon. Friend will know that at present there are 11,000 women who are benefiting under our supplementary benefits scheme.

Mr. Dean: Will the right hon. Lady bear in mind the great sacrifices which many of these women make, particularly when their dependants are disabled?

Miss Herbison: Yes, it was because this Government realised that that the Chancellor made his announcement in his Budget statement.

Lower Paid Workers

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Minister of Social Security if she will now take steps to assist the redistribution of income by increasing social security payments and by enabling lower-paid workers to obtain social security benefit.

Miss Herbison: I would refer my hon. Friend to what I said in the House on these matters in the debate on 20th April.—[Vol. 745, c. 852.]

Mr. Roberts: Does not the Minister agree that the extension of social security benefits to lower-paid workers is a vital part of an effective incomes policy? Does she not agree that there should be a national minimum wage below which earnings should not be allowed to fall?

Miss Herbison: This Question does not deal with a national minimum wage. I am not responsible for that side of the problem. What I am responsible for as a Minister in the Government is to find a method whereby we shall help those families when the father is in work or out of work. I said in the debate that we shall make our announcement in the summer.

Mr. Dean: Does the right hon. Lady realise that in the debate to which she has referred there was contradictory emphasis in what she said and what the Minister without Portfolio said? Can she see that this confusion, which is widely shared outside, is cleared up?

Miss Herbison: I add no more to saying that we shall announce in the summer our plans for dealing with this very important matter.

Wage Stop (Incapacitated Persons)

Mr. Moyle: asked the Minister of Social Security whether she will alter the rule concerning the wage stop for incapacitated people so that it relates to the wage they were earning before incapacitation rather than what they could earn subsequent to incapacitation.

Miss Herbison: No, Sir. As I explained to the House on 24th April, the right way to help the man with low earning capacity, whether he is unemployed or working, is by some form of family endowment.

Mr. Moyle: I do not wish to disagree with my right hon. Friend in the last part of her reply, but would not she consider relaxing the rule in respect of some severely handicapped people, such as the blind, who are likely to want to work in order to maintain their mental equilibrium in any case?

Miss Herbison: Those who are blind and are in receipt of supplementary benefit receive special concessions which others do not receive. If an attempt were made to find suitable criteria for saying when a man was disabled or not disabled, we should come up against the difficulty of the man who was in full-time work but who, because of his mental capacity or otherwise, was unable to make more than a man would get on supplementary benefit. The only way of dealing with this is by a form of family endowment for all of them.

Mr. Tinn: Will my right hon. Friend consider, in the case of a man against whom the wage stop has operated and who obtains work at that lower rate, making some payment to bring him up to a more reasonable living wage? This would encourage such people to find work and not penalise them as at present.

Miss Herbison: The Question has highlighted the very great difficulties inherent in this. The only way of overcoming them is by ensuring that the family does not suffer when the man is in or out of work.

Late Claims

Mr. Berry: asked the Minister of Social Security whether in the case of retirement pensioners' benefits, she will enlarge the period in which late claims for benefits can be made.

19. Mr. Murray: asked the Minister of Social Security whether she will now alter the rule which prevents a person who claims late from getting more than six months' arrears of benefit.

Miss Herbison: I have today referred this and related National Insurance time limits to the National Insurance Advisory Committee for consideration and report. For the convenience of hon. Members, I will, with permission, circulate the terms of reference to the Committee in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Berry: Does the right hon. Lady realise that in the case of retired pensioners there is quite a difference from the sickness claims? Would she bear in mind that there are many people, despite all the publicity which she rightly gives to their entitlement to make claims, who do not realise this? Will she deal sympathetically with this problem?

Miss Herbison: The number of retirement pensioners affected is very small. But it does not matter how small it is: it can cause hardship to individuals. The whole question must be examined by my Advisory Committee.

Mr. Murray: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this news will be widely welcomed. How long will the Advisory Committee take to report?

Miss Herbison: The Advisory Committee will be advertising and people who have any views on the matter will have three months in which to make their representations. I always find that the Advisory Committee works as speedily as possible.

Mr. Frederic Harris: Does not the hon. Lady agree that the best practical answer for these retirement pensioners is to increase pensions generally? Will she be able to tell the House soon when she intends to do this?

Miss Herbison: That is a completely different question. If the hon. Gentleman would understand what Questions are being asked me, he would realise that what he suggests would not help the man who fails to make his application.

Following are the terms of reference:
To review those provisions of the National Insurance Act 1965 and regulations made under it which, subject to certain limited exceptions, prevent benefit being paid retrospectively for more than six months, and extinguish the right to benefit if payment is not obtained within six months: and to report.

Selective Employment Tax

Sir G. Sinclair: asked the Minister of Social Security how many registered disabled were in receipt of unemployment benefit at the latest date for which figures are available; and how many were in receipt of unemployment benefit immediately before the introduction of the Selective Employment Tax.

Mr. Pentland: No records are kept of the numbers of registered disabled persons drawing unemployment benefit. However, I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour that between August, 1966, and March, 1967, the numbers of such men and women registered as unemployed, whether entitled to benefit or not, increased proportionately much less than did the total numbers registered as unemployed.

Sir G. Sinclair: Should not the Parliamentary Secretary have accurate figures of this group of people if the Ministry is adequately to help them? They are some of the people most needing help as a result of S.E.T.

Mr. Pentland: We have no figures in answer to the direct Question. The Ministry of Labour has no evidence that the introduction of S.E.T. has caused any discrimination by employers against disabled persons.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary recognise that part of the difficulty we have in dealing with these matters arises because of the shortage of information? Will he take steps to liaise with the Ministry of Labour and co-ordinate better the knowledge and information which we need? Will he reconsider the question of setting up a research unit, as suggested from these benches many months ago?

Mr. Pentland: There is liaison between my Department and the Ministry of Labour. In regard to this aspect of the question, it was ever thus under both Conservative and Labour Administrations.

Mr. Molloy: On the general question of the problems that afflict the already afflicted disabled, has my hon. Friend taken full cognisance of some of the proposals put to him by the Disablement Income Group?

Mr. Pentland: Yes. All of these proposals are being considered.

Mr. Dean: asked the Minister of Social Security how many people over retirement age were in receipt of National Insurance benefits owing to being unable to find employment, at the latest date for which figures are available, and immediately before the introduction of the Selective Employment Tax, respectively.

Mr. Pentland: I regret that this information is not available.

Mr. Dean: Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that this is very unsatisfactory? Does he not recognise that a tax on the employment of the old and, indeed, of the disabled is a bad tax? Does not he require more information so that he can make effective representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Mr. Pentland: The question of a tax is for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH

Intravenous Fluids (Supplies)

Mr. Gurden: asked the Minister of Health what representations he has received about the supply of essential intravenous fluids; and what action he has taken.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): My attention has been drawn to difficulties in some areas, including Birmingham, and steps have been taken to ensure the fair distribution of supplies.

Mr. Gurden: The Minister has acknowledged the grave shortage of pharmacists, certainly in the Midlands. What can he tell us about the closing-down of the Cuxson Gerrard Manufactory? What is he doing about the whole problem? As I think you once said, Mr. Speaker, "The question is: what is the answer?"

Mr. Robinson: According to my information, supplies from existing commercial sources are gradually increasing. Although the general situation is still difficult, according to my information it is not critical. On the question of the shortage of pharmacists, I refer the hon. Gentleman to my hon. Friend's reply to his Question on 13th February and also to the reply given to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt) on 24th April.

Health Check Weeks

Mrs. Joyce Butler: asked the Minister of Health if he will send a circular to medical officers of health asking them to examine the possibility of undertaking


periodic public health screening campaigns on the lines of the recent experiment in Rotherham.

Mr. K. Robinson: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 14th April to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick).—[Vol. 744, c. 275.]

Mrs. Butler: In view of the very keen public response and the enthusiasm of the medical officers and their staff in areas where these services have been carried out, and the significant results obtained, will not my right hon. Friend look at this matter again and regard these as very valuable pilot schemes towards a preventive health service which should be encouraged in every possible way?

Mr. Robinson: My department, in collaboration with the Medical Research Council, has for many years taken the initiative in arranging research to establish the value of screening for various diseases. We are financing a number of studies. I and my advisers are in close touch with the Medical Officer of Health over his health weeks in Rotherham and we await a report of the findings of the most recent week.

Mr. Winnick: Does not there seem to be a great deal of hesitation and reluctance on the part of the Ministry to encourage such schemes? Were not a number of illnesses found during this health week which otherwise would probably not have been discovered for some time?

Mr. Robinson: I have told my hon. Friend already that my Standing Advisory Medical Committee tells me that screening of the general public should be undertaken only for conditions which can clearly and accurately be diagnosed and for which effective treatment is available. It is within that framework that we are studying what extensions would be desirable in the preventive field.

Mr. Braine: I accept what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, but is he satisfied that there are enough public health medical and other staff to ensure effective screening programmes where these are thought to be desirable and to

ensure the follow-up which must be done if there is to be effective treatment?

Mr. Robinson: There are several considerations to be taken into account. There is the burden on the existing hospital service which may result, and the question whether screening is most appropriately undertaken within the framework of the general medical service or the community health service. I assure the hon. Gentleman that all these matters are being studied.

Sir G. Sinclair: In view of the public response to screening in this limited problem, what plans has the Minister for expanding the training of the technicians who must support the medical practitioners in carrying out any such screening?

Mr. Robinson: I take it that the hon. Gentleman is referring to screening for cervical cancer, though the Question was put in a wider context. I assure him that training is going on satisfactorily, and the number of trained technicians is increasing rapidly week by week.

Mrs. Butler: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an early opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Domiciliary Physiotherapy Service

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the Chartered Society of Physiotherapists has now proposed the establishment of an effective domiciliary physiotherapy service for relieving the pressure on ambulance services, hospital physiotherapy departments and assisting more people to return to a useful and independent life; and what action he proposes to take.

Mr. Snow: The Society has made no such proposal to my right hon. Friend.

Dame Irene Ward: As the professional organisation, on whose council I sit, supports the mobile physiotherapy unit, may I ask the hon. Gentleman, following on Question No. 24, whether the Minister will receive a deputation, as is usual when a Member of Parliament requests it, so that all this important issue can be properly and adequately considered? This is an answer which I was asked to get.

Mr. Snow: The hon. Lady knows that any Member of Parliament will be readily received by my right hon. Friend, but, when it comes to other deputations from outside, there are other considerations to be taken into account. Furthermore, the hon. Lady will, no doubt, be aware that, subject to Mr. Speaker's guidance, there may be an opportunity to discuss this matter later this week.

Dame Irene Ward: Jolly good, too.

Pharmaceutical Industry (Exports)

Mr. Fisher: asked the Minister of Health if he will state the contribution to British export earnings made by the pharmaceutical industry during the past year, as compared with five years and 10 years ago, respectively.

Mr. K. Robinson: The value of exports of "Medicinal and Pharmaceutical Products" during 1966 was £66·78 million. The comparable figures for 1961 and 1956 were £48·76 million and £35·94 million.

Mr. Fisher: Is it not very much to the credit of the industry that, according to my information, its export earnings rose in four years by £20 million, from £55 million in 1962 to over £75 million last year? Will the right hon. Gentleman take this into account when studying the recommendations of the Sainsbury Committee?

Mr. Robinson: I shall take all relevant considerations into account when I receive that report. This is a good record. I think that the hon. Gentleman's figures and mine differ slightly. As a percentage of total exports, in ten years, the exports of pharmaceuticals have risen from 1·11 per cent. to 1·32 per cent. To complete the picture, I should remind the hon. Gentleman that there are offset payments which bring the net contribution to the balance of payments down in 1963 to about £35·5 million.

Mr. Braine: I am sure that the Minister will bear in mind the creditable achievements of this growth industry. Can he say when the Sainsbury Report will become available, and when the House will have an opportunity to discuss it?

Mr. Robinson: The Report will become available this summer, and I

should like to await its receipt before I answer the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question.

Public Health Medical Officers

Mr. Braine: asked the Minister of Health what steps he is taking to remedy the shortage of public health medical officers.

Mr. K. Robinson: There is a shortage of doctors generally, but it appears that local health authorities are recruiting a reasonable proportion of the doctors available. Steps are being taken to increase the intake of medical schools.

Mr. Braine: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the Mallaby Committee considered that not only was there a shortage in the public health medical service but that it was made worse because doctors in it are at a disadvantage over remuneration compared with general practitioners and hospital doctors? It there not a strong case for setting up an independent inquiry into the remuneration and terms of service of those doctors?

Mr. Robinson: No, Sir. I am consulting the local authority associations about the recommendations in the Mallaby Report, but I would not think that the figures bear out what the hon. Gentleman said. Between May, 1962, and 1966, local authorities recruited about 12 per cent. of those doctors becoming available, although they employ only about 4 per cent. of the total active medical population. Therefore, they have been getting more than their share.

Mr. Braine: Is not the Minister making light of this? Is he not aware of the very deep resentment felt among public medical officers that their remuneration and terms of service are not being regarded with any degree of urgency? These doctors are essential to the National Health Service, so why cannot they be treated in the same way as other doctors?

Mr. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman knows as well as any hon. Member that it has been maintained successfully on several occasions before the Industrial Court that the salaries of medical officers of health are related to the salaries of other chief officers of local authorities. A report on those salaries is


expected from the National Board for Prices and Incomes in the summer, and I am satisfied that it is right for the management side of the Whitley Council to await it before making an offer.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS

General Practitioner Maternity Unit (Leicester)

Sir B. Janner: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that an application has been made to the Sheffield Regional Hospital Board for the establishment of a Cardiff type general practitioner maternity unit in Leicester;and if, in view of the support which this has received from the medical profession in Leicester and the success of the Cardiff unit, he will see that the unit is speedily installed.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Julian Snow): We are aware of this proposal, which the Sheffield Regional Hospital Board is considering.

Sir B. Janner: Being aware of the proposal, is my hon. Friend not aware that this is a very inexpensive way of dealing with a very important matter and that the Cardiff unit has turned out to be extremely useful to everybody's satisfaction? Will he urge the Sheffield people to do something about this in Leicester?

Mr. Snow: I have no reason to suppose that the Sheffield Board is not examining the matter urgently. The Cardiff unit is an interesting experiment full of promise, but there has had to be reconsideration of the economics of staff in the light of experience

Bromsgrove General Hospital

Mr. Dance: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the waiting time for urgent cases to be admitted to Bromsgrove General Hospital is on average three months; and what steps he is taking to prevent such delays.

Mr. Snow: For urgent acute cases there is no such delay; for geriatric and chronic sick patients there is difficulty in finding accommodation, but on 24th April only four such patients on the waiting list were classified as "urgent" none having been

so classified for more than 18 days; one of them has since been admitted.

Mr. Dance: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that an elderly constituent of mine died in tragic circumstances while awaiting admission to this hospital? Further, is he aware that, with the growth of the new town of Redditch, this problem will escalate? When are we to have an announcement of when the new hospital is to be started and, more important, when it is to be completed?

Mr. Snow: I have read the correspondence between the hon. Gentleman and the regional hospital board about his elderly constituent, and I say at once that it was a very sad case. A number of beds have been taken out of commission because of the upgrading of another hospital in order to make it available as a district general hospital. The Dudley and Stourbridge Hospital Management Committee is considering what help it can give by making some more accommodation available to the mid-Worcestershire area.

Mrs. Braddock: Is it not time that the whole question of admission to hospital was looked into? If a person can pay, he can get priority in admission. Is it not time that our National Health Service put an end to this sort of thing?

Mr. Snow: The question of queue jumping, if one may so describe it, is being urgently considered at present by my right hon. Friend.

New Hospital, Newcastle-upon-Tyne

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Minister of Health if he has considered the representations by the medical profession against the building of a new general hospital at Newcastle-upon-Tyne instead of expanding the present hospitals; whether he is aware that the regional hospital board has refused to receive a deputation; and if he will instruct the regional hospital board to receive a deputation to discuss the matter.

Mr. K. Robinson: These representations have been fully considered both by the regional hospital board and my Department. With regard to the second part of the Question, I understand that no such request has been made to the regional board.

Dame Irene Ward: Without taking sides on one side or the other, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that there seems to be a tendency in his Department to accept rather dictatorial powers, which are adversely commented on by the Press, and will he in future see that, when deputations are requested, from whatever source—provided that they are from suitable people—they Will be accepted?

Mr. Robinson: I could not give the blanket undertaking for which the hon. Lady asks, and neither could I accept her accusation of dictatorial behaviour on the part of my Department. I can tell her, however, that, in this matter, if the consultant staff request a meeting with the regional hospital board, I have every reason to believe that their request will be granted. I should add that hospital consultant staff have been continuously involved in the formulation of the plan for Newcastle since planning first began in 1955.

Mr. Bob Brown: Will my right hon. Friend accept that neither his Department nor the regional hospital board has come very well out of the unseemly Press "run-up" which there has been on this issue? Would it not be a good thing to advise regional hospital boards to concentrate on better public relations work?

Mr. Robinson: It is true that, in the present discussion or argument in Newcastle, the strong case of the regional hospital board has been insufficiently publicised. I hope that it is now in process of putting this right.

Hospital Patients (Length of Stay)

Mr. Fisher: asked the Minister of Health how long the average patient remains in hospital in Great Britain; whether he has any plans to reduce this period; and how it compares with the average length of hospitalisation in comparable countries about which he has information.

Mr. K. Robinson: In the acute specialties the average length of stay in England and Wales has already been reduced from 16·8 days in 1957 to 12·3 days in 1966. The hospital service is working to reduce the period still more, to the extent com-

patible with the highest standards of medical care. Valid comparisons with other countries are difficult, but comparative studies are in progress.

Mr. Fisher: Is there not still a considerable discrepancy between different regions, and, if the hospitalisation time in the worst areas were reduced to that in the best, would not this release many beds and clear the waiting lists in many areas?

Mr. Robinson: Yes, Sir, I do not dissent from what the hon. Gentleman says; but he will know that length of stay in hospital reflects, to a considerable extent, the pattern of medical practice and is largely decided on the basis of clinical judgment. My Department's guidance to hospitals is aimed at the more economical use of hospital beds, and the trend is one of decreasing length of stay.

Mr. Pavitt: Has there not been a tremendous increase in the number of cases which we have been able to deal with in our hospitals over the past ten years, and is this not due in no small measure to the fact that, since the inception of the Service, we have doubled the number of nurses employed in it?

Mr. Robinson: Yes, Sir; both points which my hon. Friend makes are broadly correct.

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: But has not the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) great validity? One accepts the need for total clinical freedom, but, in the Minister's view, are enough steps taken to draw the attention of the different regions and different specialties to improvements effected in other areas?

Mr. Robinson: Yes, Sir; this is done periodically. It has been done in the past, but perhaps the time has come to do it again.

Nurses (Charges)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that a nurse has to pay a fee of six guineas to get on to the State Register, and that she has to pay a similar sum to sit her final examinations; and what steps he intends to take to reduce or eliminate these charges.

Mr. Snow: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend approved these fees last year and before doing so satisfied himself that they were necessary to enable the General Nursing Council to meet its rising costs.

Mr. Hamilton: Can my hon. Friend tell us what these sums are used for? Does he not agree that they are completely out of proportion to the miserable salaries these girls are paid? If the Minister can sanction and approve them, presumably he can equally reduce or eliminate them and, if he can, will he not do so?

Mr. Snow: The registration fees are scaled to take account of the overall cost of administration of the Council. If it is of any comfort to my hon. Friend, I can tell him that comparable professions employing ladies like these charge somewhat higher registration fees. In any case, these fees are known three years in advance of the actual demand.

Earl of Dalkeith: What is the overall sum of money involved in the average year? Would the Minister agree that it would be worth while removing any form of disincentive to getting nurses into this essential profession?

Mr. Snow: I could not give that figure without notice, but I should not have thought that these fees are a disincentive, although I agree that it is a matter which should be watched.

Mr. Pavitt: As hospital boards, management committees and boards of governors have a right to meet certain costs, what would be my hon. Friend's advice to them on whether they should meet these charges for their own nurses?

Mr. Snow: We shall look into that question.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Is the Minister aware that a B.O.A.C. senior captain earning nearly £6,000 a year pays less to obtain his licence than do the nurses for their registration, and will he look at the matter again?

Mr. Snow: The subsidy for a commercial enterprise such as B.O.A.C. is not a matter for comparison with an organisation such as the General Nursing Council.

Mr. Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatis-

factory nature of those replies, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Nurse Tutors

Mr. Braine: asked the Minister of Health what representations he has received from the Royal College of Nursing on the Salmon Committee's proposals for improving the status of nurse tutors; and what action he is taking in the light of these representations.

Mr. K. Robinson: The Royal College, in commenting on the proposals, accepted that in recognising the needs, as students, of nurses in training, the Salmon recommendations were a step in the right direction and would to some extent improve the status of nurse tutors. They did not agree that the grading proposed for tutors was right. This is a question which I hope that experience gained in the pilot schemes will help to resolve.

Mr. Braine: Does that reply mean that the dissenting views of the Royal College of Nursing on this score were not taken into account before the Minister wrote to hospital boards as he promised to do last March?

Mr. Robinson: Certainly they have been taken into account, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we are embarking on certain pilot schemes. I am prepared to reconsider the matter in the light of the experience of those pilot schemes.

Domestic Duties

Mr. Holland: asked the Minister of Health what steps he is taking to ensure that nurses in National Health Service hospitals do not have to spend time on such domestic duties as sorting linen and washing up after patients' meals.

Mr. Snow: A sub-committee of my right hon. Friend's Standing Nursing Advisory Committee has been studying this question and is expected to report shortly.

Mr. Holland: But would not the Minister agree that, in addition to being a misuse of skill, this practice is a deterrent to nursing recruitment and also a contributory factor to wastage? Does he not feel that the situation justifies a nationwide campaign to recruit more domestic


staff for hospitals, without waiting for the Report?

Mr. Snow: If the hon. Gentleman has a case in mind, perhaps he would let us know about it. In 1963 hospital authorities were advised that the counting of soiled linen in hospital wards should cease. My right hon. Friend has recommended hospital authorities to provide central washing-up departments in all new hospitals, and in others where practicable.

Mr. Frederic Harris: Will the Minister take note of what has been said in the House today, and that there is such a considerable shortage of nurses that the whole situation of the nurses—their work, pay and everything else—should be taken fully into account? Will he show some interest in the matter?

Mr. Snow: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman could have heard my original Answer to his hon. Friend. In any event, the recruiting of nurses is encouraging.

Mr. Hamilton: Will the report to which my hon. Friend alluded in his original Answer be made available to the House and the public?

Mr. Snow: I think that that would be possible. I should like to consider the matter first, but there seems to be no objection.

Ancillary Staff (Report)

Mr. Dean: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the recent report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes criticising the efficiency of certain aspects of the National Health Service; what action he proposes to take to remedy the situation; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. K. Robinson: I have noted the Board's comments on management and organisation of ancillary staff in the hospital service. It is my constant concern to secure improvement in these fields, in a wider context than that with which the Board were concerned.

Mr. Dean: Bearing in mind that the National Health Service is one of the biggest employers in the country and that the National Board for Prices and Incomes drew attention to deficiencies in organisation and the use of modern labour-management techniques, would the Minister consider the possibility of

a much wider use of management consultants?

Mr. Robinson: I think the Board recognised that some of its comments on the organisation and management of the Service are outside its terms of reference and that it could not take account of all the relevant factors. Nevertheless, I accept that there is always room for improvement, and I am considering the implications of the Board's report. If we are to implement its suggestions, a considerable expansion of work study staff will certainly be required.

Mr. Pavitt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it will be impossible to get efficiency while the pay of supervisory grades is so appallingly low? The basic rate of a person in charge of 74 porters is only £15 7s. a week. Is he also aware that contracting out work causes more expense than if we were to increase pay?

Mr. Robinson: These matters of pay are for the appropriate Whitley Council, which will no doubt take full account of what my hon. Friend said.

Mr. Braine: Do not those last two questions and answers reveal that there is a real need to investigate the use of manpower or womanpower in the National Health Service? Things are going hopelessly wrong, and is there not a case for an independent review of the Service?

Mr. Robinson: No, Sir. Things are not going hopelessly wrong. The National Board for Prices and Incomes was concerned solely with ancillary staff in the National Health Service.

Mr. Ogden: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that this is one of the dangers of delegating authority to regional boards? Has he any power to intervene and tell such authorities how they are to conduct their affairs?

Mr. Robinson: I have plenty of ways of making my wishes known to regional boards.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF LABOUR

Disabled Persons, Cheltenham

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Minister of Labour what action he is taking to find employment for the number of disabled men out of work in Cheltenham.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Roy Hattersley): Through the special employment services, which are provided by my Department for the disabled, my officers in Cheltenham take every opportunity to submit those disabled people who are unemployed for suitable vacancies which are notified. They also make special approaches to employers for possible openings.

Mr. Dodos-Parker: Do not these figures bear out the warnings so frequently given from this side of the House that there would be an increase of unemployment among the disabled because of the Selective Employment Tax? Will the hon. Gentleman approach the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do something to ameliorate the effect of this ridiculous tax on the disabled?

Mr. Hattersley: All the inquiries by my Department suggest that the tax has led to no significant increase in the number of unemployed among the disabled.

Pension and Superannuation Schemes

Mr. Spriggs: asked the Minister of Labour if he will give details of those pension and superannuation schemes which are now transferable with his approval and whether transfer is retrospective.

Mr. Hattersley: A committee of the National Joint Advisory Council reported last year that the rules of pension schemes covering about three-quarters of existing members provided for some degree of preservation on withdrawal. Fuller details are given in the committee's published report. No approval from my right hon. Friend is required for transferability.

Mr. Spriggs: How far back can a person transfer the funds from one superannuation scheme to another?

Mr. Hattersley: I take it that my hon. Friend means what period should elapse between leaving one job and taking the next and then transferability being made possible. This subject is still under review but my right hon. Friend, of course, realises the importance of making that period as long as possible.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that many of the

nationalised industries are somewhat backward in allowing transferability of pension rights, particularly when the employee goes to the private sector? Will he look into the matter?

Mr. Hattersley: I understand that difficulty, and the hon. and learned Gentleman has my assurance that all these matters are receiving attention.

Asbestos Products

47. Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Labour if he will introduce legislation to compel manufacturers of any boards or other materials containing asbestos to stamp clearly on each board the percentage of asbestos they contain.

Mr. Hattersley: My right hon. Friend is considering whether, when the Factories Act is next amended, he should seek powers to require manufacturers to take precautions for the benefit of workers not employed by them, but whose work involves dealing with their products.

Mr. Allaun: Will my hon. Friend implement these proposals fairly quickly? Does he accept the recent medical advice that asbestos can cause cancer? Will he also respect the strong feelings of the Wood Cutting Machinists Association that health should come before profits?

Mr. Hattersley: While I agree with both my hon. Friend's contentions, I hope he will understand that to make provisions of the kind he suggests would require revision of the Factories Act and I cannot promise that in the immediate future.

Mrs. Butler: As we are discovering fresh health hazards from asbestos every day, and since some workers adversely affected have been working only a short time with asbestos, will my hon. Friend ensure that this point is covered also?

Mr. Hattersley: I am open to correction but I understand that these hazards come from working with asbestos directly and not with products, which are the subject of the Question on the Order Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROLLS RAZOR LTD.

Mr. Maddan: asked the Attorney-General when he expects the Director of Public Prosecutions to complete his


inquiries into the affairs of Rolls Razor Limited.

The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): Police inquiries into this highly complex matter, involving several companies and individuals, are still in progress. It is hoped that they may be completed in a few months' time The Director of Public Prosecutions is unable to take any decision in the matter until the results of the police investigation are available.

Mr. Maddan: Is the Attorney-General aware that the inquiries by the Director of Public Prosecutions and the police have been going on for 17 months and that they were preceded by a 17-months-long inquiry by the Board of Trade? Is it true that there are 14 tons of paper evidence and that only seven tons have so far been examined by the two officers concerned? Why does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman press the Government to strengthen the Fraud Squad and to drop the ridiculous restriction about a man having to be more than 5 feet 8 inches before being able to join the police?

The Attorney-General: I cannot confirm the accuracy of the figures relating to the tonnage of paper quoted by the hon. Gentleman, but this is a highly complex matter involving investigation into the affairs of several companies over a term of several years. The delay is regrettable; but the problem is not so much one of manpower but of the complexity and wide range of the facts to be investigated.

Oral Answers to Questions — JUSTICES OF THE PEACE

Mr. Whitaker: asked the Attorney-General whether he will take steps to provide that magistrates appointed prior to 1964 have some compulsory training.

The Attorney-General: No, Sir. There are probably some 12,000 justices of the peace now sitting who were appointed before 1964, and it would be quite impracticable to require them now to undertake training and provide the necessary facilities. In any event, it would not be possible to impose now upon these magistrates an additional obligation which they were not asked to accept at the time when they were appointed.

Mr. Whitaker: Is it not the fallacy of the present voluntary system that, whereas most progressive magistrates are anxious to undergo these courses, it is just those magistrates most in need of exposure to modern ideas who do not attend any training courses?

The Attorney-General: It is, however, the case that the further training of all justices which has been recommended is being carried out satisfactorily and that part of the work is continuing.

Mr. Carlisle: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that there is feeling among magistrates that the clerk of the court in which they sit is not the best person to give the preliminary training to new magistrates, as this tends to make them too dependent upon him later?

The Attorney-General: I have no reason to believe that the compulsory training of justices, which has been in operation since 1st January, 1966, is not proceeding satisfactorily, but I will look into the point mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions — ILLEGAL RADIO STATION

Mr. Faulds: asked the Attorney General whether he will instruct the Director of Public Prosecutions to make inquiries, with a view to prosecution for demanding with menaces, into the action of a director of an illegal radio station, whose name has been sent to him, in uttering threats against the hon. Member for Smethwick.

The Attorney-General: I have asked the Director of Public Prosecutions to consider whether there is any evidence that a criminal offence has been committed in relation to this matter.

Mr. Faulds: While I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he will confirm that such action will not prejudice any investigation that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade may wish to instigate?

The Attorney-General: I do not know what action will yet be taken, if any, but certainly if such action were taken


it would not prejudice any action by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade in the wider field.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEGAL AID (MENTAL HEALTH REVIEW TRIBUNALS)

Mr. Whitaker: asked the Attorney General what would be the estimated cost of making legal aid available to applicants to mental health review tribunals.

The Attorney-General: No estimate has been made. Economic circumstances do not permit extension of the Legal Aid Scheme at the present time and there is little call for it to be extended to these tribunals.

Mr. Whitaker: Would not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is patients who have been immured in mental hospitals for a considerable time who could most benefit from professional advice? Would not the Tribunals themselves also appreciate the succinct presentation of the facts before them?

The Attorney-General: I have had no representations that there is any sense of injustice arising from the present arrangements, but if my hon. Friend has any case in mind that he would care to refer to me I would be very willing to look into it.

Oral Answers to Questions — MAJOR CARR

Mr. Webster: asked the Attorney-General what papers have been referred in the case of Major Carr to the Director of Public Prosecutions; and what action has been taken.

The Attorney-General: A number of circulars and letters relating to this matter have been sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the police are now conducting a further investigation.

Mr. Webster: In view of the wide publicity which has affected my constituent, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman either take action in the matter or have the matter closed in order that my constituent's name can be cleared?

The Attorney-General: As I have said, police inquiries are continuing. Whether they will result ultimately in the happy

conclusion to which the hon. Gentleman has referred we shall have to wait and see.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO

Homeless Single Persons

Mr. Park: asked the Minister without Portfolio what action he intends to take to deal with the report of the survey on homeless single persons carried out by the National Assistance Board in co-operation with Government Departments; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister Without Portfolio (Mr. Patrick Gordon Walker): I am considering the report in conjunction with the Ministers concerned.

Mr. Park: Will my hon. Friend inform the House what authorities or individuals he is consulting about this matter?

Mr. Gordon Walker: I have, of course, consulted with the various Ministers concerned and in particular with Mr. Richard Hayward, Chairman of the Supplementary Benefits Commission. This is the agency primarily concerned. I was particularly interested in his ideas of arranging for longer stays for these people in the various hostels and centres. An experiment is now going on in three such places where there can be prolonged stays. Of course, an experiment of this kind needs time before we can judge whether it will help in the situation.

Oral Answers to Questions — E.F.T.A. (MINISTERIAL MEETING)

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if he will make a statement on the outcome of the European Free Trade Association Ministerial meeting in London on 28th April.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Frederick Mulley): The meeting was designed to fulfil the undertaking that we made at Stockholm to consult further with our European Free Trade Association partners after we had had an opportunity of reviewing my right hon. Friends' the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary's discussions in the capitals of


the Community, but before any conclusions had been drawn from them as regards Her Majesty's Government's future policy.
With permission, I will circulate a copy of the communiquée in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain the communiqué's reference to transitional periods to enable existing members of E.F.T.A. to complete negotiations? Was there or was there not any undertaking given regarding the imposition of tariffs between existing members of E.F.T.A.?

Mr. Mulley: No undertakings were given beyond those set out in the communiquée itself, of which, I am sure, the hon. Gentleman has seen a copy. The point with which E.F.T.A. members were concerned was that we should endeavour—the phrase is clearly in that sense—to see that all E.F.T.A. members seeking membership of or association with the Community should contrive to do so in a way which would prevent for a transitional time the erection of tariff barriers only for them to be removed when they were all, as one hoped, members of the Community.

Mr. William Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the terms of the 1961 London Agreement will be fully adhered to?

Mr. Mulley: I can give no such assurance, because no such assurance was asked for. There is a general view in E.F.T.A. that those terms no longer apply and my hon. Friend will see from paragraph 5 of the communiquée what is the wish of E.F.T.A. Governments in present circumstances, if—and I must stress "if"—Her Majesty's Government decide to make such an application.

E.F.T.A. PRESS COMMUNIQUé

The E.F.T.A. Council met at Ministerial level in London on 28th April, 1967, under the chairmanship of Mr. Gunnar Lange, Minister of Commerce of Sweden. Finland was also represented by Mr. Ahti Karjalainen, Foreign Minister, who was present in a personal capacity. The only item on their agenda was European integration.

2. The meeting, held in accordance with an agreement reached at the E.F.T.A. Ministerial conference in Stockholm in March of this year, gave the opportunity for a general

discussion among Ministers of the prospects of European integration as they appear now that the United Kingdom Government have been able to review their own recent discussions in the six capitals of the European Economic Community, and before any final conclusions have been drawn from them.

3. The E.F.T.A. Governments, desirous of bringing about a single European market in accordance with the purpose of the Stockholm Convention, recognised that, if the British Government were to decide to seek a closer relationship with the E.E.C., that decision would open up new prospects for a solution of the question of European economic integration, in which they all intended to participate.

4. In affirming their intention to work towards the goal of European economic integration, all the E.F.T.A. Governments reiterated their strong interest in safe-guarding, as an important part of an enlarged European community, the free market already established in E.F.T.A. by the successful dismantling of trade barriers within the Association.

5. The change from the present division of Europe to a single market should be as smooth as possible. Were the United Kingdom or any other member of E.F.T.A. to apply for participation in the E.E.C., the process of negotiation and of ratifying any ensuing agreement could hardly be short. In addition, it would be the purpose of E.F.T.A. Governments that, should it be necessary in order to give a reasonable opportunity to their partners in the Free Trade Area to conclude negotiations, sufficient transitional periods should be provided for, with a view to avoiding disruption in European trade patterns.

6. Ministers agreed that their Governments should maintain close and continuous consultation on all the aspects of the future of European structure.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS

St. James's Palace (Clock)

Sir W. Teeling: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works how many times the main clock at St. James's Palace has broken down in the last 12 months; what has been the cost of repairing it; and what estimate he has made of the cost of replacing it, compared with the cost of future repairs.

The Minister of Public Building and Works (Mr. Reg Prentice): The clock has stopped three times. Repairs and a recent major overhaul cost £557. Complete replacement of the clock is not considered necessary but the installation of a modern mechanism would cost about £2,500. In comparison, the cost of any future repairs should be negligible.

Sir W. Teeling: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that about a week after


it had been repaired, it stopped again? Is he aware that it is in a beautiful position, with sentries underneath, and is probably one of the most photographed clocks in London, especially by foreigners, and that these faults cannot give foreigners a very good impression of our clock makers?

Mr. Prentice: I realise that, and it was because the clock had been repaired three times in 12 months that there was a major overhaul between February and April, this year. The overhaul was the first for 20 years and in the circumstances I think that the cost was reasonable. I hope that, as a result, there will be no further trouble.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Motor Vehicles (Exhaust Fumes)

Mr. Longden: asked the Minister of Transport what action the Government are now taking to prevent the discharge of excessive exhaust fumes from motor vehicles, especially those with diesel engines.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer given to him and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. John Hynd) on 8th March and also that given to the hon. Member for Wembley, South (Sir R. Russell) on 11th November.—[Vol. 742, c. 282.] [Vol. 735, c. 384.]

Mr. Longden: How has the research into this matter conducted by the Economic Council for Europe been getting on? Although there is some dispute about the effects of these fumes on cancer, our air would obviously be better without them. Cannot the hon. Gentleman do something to get rid of them?

Mr. Swingler: A considerable amount of research is being done here under national and under private auspices, and also in other countries. We are taking account of all this. As my right hon. Friend has said, if the result of this research shows a need for new regulations, she will not hesitate to make them.

Mr. Webster: Is the hon. Gentleman content that the weight-power ratio as now laid down in the regulations is satisfactory?

Mr. Swingler: As the hon. Gentleman will know, we are discussing this matter with the manufacturers and we aim to get a satisfactory ratio.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

South Orbital Road Link (B2032)

Sir G. Sinclair: asked the Minister of Transport if she will reconsider the recent decision not to accept as a principal road B2032, the Pebble Hill link between the A25 and the South Orbital road.

Mr. Swingler: No, Sir, not so far as the existing B2032 is concerned. But the status of a possible Pebble Coombe Hill diversion will be considered in the light of the scheme to be made for the South Orbital Road between Godstone and Leatherhead.

Sir G. Sinclair: Will the Parliamentary Secretary bear in mind that if there is to be no Government help for a classified road between Pebble Hill and the A.25, there may be a burden of £1·2 million expenditure on Surrey County Council?

Mr. Swingler: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the draft scheme for this part of the South Orbital is about to be published, and, in the light of that, we shall have to consider the connecting roads very seriously. It is most likely that that will alter the situation and I think that the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied with the result.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

Far East

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about his recent visit to the Far East regarding British commitments and forces there.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey): I visited Singapore and Malaysia for the primary purpose of discussing with the Commander-in-Chief and with the two Governments concerned how best we might achieve further reductions in the theatre as a whole by April, 1968, on the lines I had indicated in the defence debate. I also met the trade union leaders in Singapore and Kuala Lumpur.
As a result of the visit, and subject to discussion of the details in London, I believe that it will be possible to reduce by April next year the total number of men and women working in or for the Services by about 20,000 compared with the total at the end of "confrontation". In addition, I had some preliminary discussions about the scope for further reductions during the next two or three years; and I obtained a great deal of information which will form a basis for further examination and discussion both at home and abroad during the next few weeks and months.
The Governments of Singapore and Malaysia both understand our position and I believe that the possibilities we have under consideration for the next few years will enable changes to be made in an orderly way without unacceptable consequences, provided that we keep in close contact with one another.

Mr. Allaun: Will the men be brought home, or are they to be sent to other bases abroad? Secondly, will my right hon. Friend resist American pressure to maintain our other very large forces which would still remain in the Far East?

Mr. Healey: I cannot guarantee that every British soldier, sailor or airman will come home, but there will be a net reduction in our forces serving overseas by the number withdrawn from Singapore and Malaysia.
In all these matters we shall, of course, take account of the views of our allies, but the reduction by 20,000 is a firm decision, subject, of course, to clearing the details in discussion with my colleagues and military advisers in London.

Mr. Powell: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the specific reductions which he was discussing were those envisaged and forecast in the defence debates earlier this year? Will he agree that when any further reductions are envisaged, it would be right for a statement to be made to the House at an early stage and that the change in policy which is involved should be properly debated? Finally, will he bear in mind, in the light of the lessons of Aden, the inadvisability of making long-range dated forecasts of withdrawals without knowledge of the circumstances?

Mr. Healey: I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman is retreating from the position which he took up at his party's Brighton Conference not so long ago. On the serious part of his question, the reduction by a total of 20,000 is, of course, as I forecast in my speech to the House in the defence debate. Any further reductions on which we may decide in the following few years will, of course, be indicated and explained to the House at the proper time.

Mr. Mayhew: What relation does this bear to our continuing defence commitments in Asia? Does the Prime Minister's statement of last June on continuing defence commitments in Asia throughout the 1970s still represent Government policy?

Mr. Healey: My hon. Friend may be aware that, contrary to his expectations a year ago, confrontation came to an end in August, last year, and that has greatly reduced the military task of our forces.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The right hon. Gentleman's answer to his hon. Friend is hardly complete. Under the S.E.A.T.O. Treaty we have an obligation. It is for us to decide what help we give our allies, but the obligation is there in respect of Thailand.

Mr. Healey: As so often, the right hon. Gentleman has put the matter precisely right. We have an obligation under the S.E.A.T.O. Treaty, but it is for us, in consultation with our allies, to decide precisely how we meet that obligation in terms of military forces.

Mr. Maxwell: In his discussion with the Prime Minister of Singapore, what commitment did my right hon. Friend make in respect of maintaining employment in Singapore, having regard to the planned withdrawal? What does he propose to do to assure Australia that we do not intend to leave them in the hands of the United States alone in connection with their defence requirements?

Mr. Healey: Of course, we are in consultation with the Australian Government the whole time. On the first part of the question, I made it clear to the House in the defence debate that reduction in base facilities will mean redundancy in locally employed or enlisted personnel. I discussed this aspect of the


problem with the Prime Minister of Singapore and other Singapore Ministers, and also, as it affects Malaysia, with the Malaysian Government. I am glad to be able to tell the House that we are all confident that we could meet this side of the problem providing that we keep in close contact on the phasing of such a programme. I was in a position to tell the two Governments that Her Majesty's Government are prepared to provide significant aid, if required, to meet the consequences of the run-down.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Would the right hon. Gentleman go a little further about the assurances to our S.E.A.T.O. allies? I think that his statement could be misinterpreted, especially in respect of the New Zealanders and Australians who have troops fighting on the mainland of Asia. Would he go a little further?

Mr. Healey: We have always made it clear that although it is, of course, for the Australian and New Zealand Governments to decide whether it is right for them to fight in Vietnam, this is not a decision that we would wish to take as far as the British Government are concerned.

Mr. Bellenger: What will happen to the military personnel who are being brought home from the Far East and, as I also understand, from B.A.O.R.? Will they have any effect on our recruiting targets for the Regular Forces?

Mr. Healey: I made it clear a year ago in the debate on the Defence White Paper that the final achievement of the Defence Review targets will require some reduction in the ceilings of recruitment in all three Services.

Mr. Sandys: Am I right in assuming from the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) that the Government are not, at present at any rate, contemplating any further reductions beyond those which he has announced?

Mr. Healey: No, Sir. Exactly the contrary. I thought that I had made it clear that we were contemplating further reductions beyond those which I have announced over the next 12 months.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Did the trade unionists whom my right hon. Friend

consulted express any opposition to the base being used in a war against China?

Mr. Healey: No, Sir. The trade unionists to whom I spoke were concerned exclusively, and I think very naturally, with the employment and conditions of their members.

BRITISH FORCES (CONTINENT)

Mr. Powell: Mr. Powell (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has any statement to make on an agreement reached regarding British forces on the Continent.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey): No, Sir. The final round of tripartite talks was held in London on Thursday and Friday of last week and the principals have transmitted their proposals to their Governments.
A statement will be made to the House at the earliest opportunity and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to await it.

Mr. Powell: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that any reduction of forces on the Continent will be decided upon, if at all, only in agreement with the whole of our allies in N.A.T.O. and not merely in the framework of the tripartite discussions?

Mr. Healey: Yes, Sir. We have repeatedly made it clear that any reduction on which we decide will be carried out after going through the same procedures as those which the Conservative Party went through when it reduced its commitments on the Continent by 25,000.

Mr. Michael Foot: Is it not the case that Her Majesty's Government have already made it clear in statements made to the House, for example, on 20th July last year, that there were certain financial consequences of these discussions on which Her Majesty's Government must insist? Will he confirm that Her Majesty's Government are still insisting precisely upon those consequences?

Mr. Healey: I must ask my hon. Friend to await the statement which will be made later in the week.

Mr. Sandys: Following on what he said, will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that as part of the procedure which he will go through he will ensure that


the views of the Supreme Allied Commander will be presented to the Committee of Ministers of W.E.U. in accordance with the Treaty?

Mr. Healey: Yes, Sir, of course. Perhaps as a titbit to the right hon. Gentleman, which I am sure he will be delighted to hear, may I say that there is a general movement of opinion inside the alliance towards the views which I have expressed in the House on a number of occasions regarding the conditions which should govern N.A.T.O. strategy.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Does my right hon. Friend remember that the Government said that they would require the covering of these costs in full? Secondly, if the figure of 6,000, or 11 per cent. of our troops there, is the figure in mind, is he aware that many of us feel that it is not good enough?

Mr. Healey: I think that my memory is good as that of my hon. Friend. On the second part of his question, I have no doubt about the feelings of many of my hon. colleagues.

OFFICIAL REPORT (CORRECTION)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On a point of order. In c. 1927 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for last Thursday there appears a point of order, if I may say so singularly well reasoned and garnished with a scholarly reference to Petronius, which is attributed to me. That attribution was fortified by a similar attribution of it to me by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson).
As I was not in the Chamber at the time, may I ask that a correction be made? By reason of my absence, I do not know to whom it should be attributed, but, from internal evidence, I suggest a search in the neighbourhood of St. Marylebone.

Mr. Speaker: I will see that the correction is made. I can assure the hon. Member that the Official Reporters are capable of doing the necessary political and physical research into finding out which right hon. Gentleman made the intervention.
I am sure that the House wishes me to comment on the fact that it is

exceedingly rarely that the reporters make any mistakes. A correction will be made.

BRITISH TRAWLER (ARREST)

Mr. Paget: On a point of order. I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the seizure on the high seas of a British trawler by an Icelandic ship of war".
The facts as reported by the B.B.C. are as follows: the British trawler was arrested in Icelandic coastal waters. She said that she had drifted there while trying to extract what she believed to be a mine from her nets. That is as it may be. But she was brought into harbour and from there she later at night made her escape. She escaped successfully outside the territorial limits before her absence was discovered and a pursuit was commenced. She was not reached until she had travelled 80 miles upon the high seas.
At that point, in my submission, any arrest became quite illegal and an infringement——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Member is arguing the merits of the issue which he is raising.

Mr. Paget: With respect, Mr. Speaker, to found my application I have to establish the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government. To do that I seek to show that this was a British ship, under the British flag, on the high seas, and entitled to the protection of the British Fleet.
If I may quote some words from Lauterpacht on this subject, they are:
Further than this, ships whilst flying the British flag are considered as though they were floating portions of the flag State"—
that is, Britain.
So this action is, in fact, an invasion of British territory for which Her Majesty's Government are responsible.
So far as the possible raising of the doctrine of hot pursuit is concerned, that applies only where the pursued——

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, the hon. and learned Gentleman is arguing the merits of the issue that he will


raise if he is fortunate enough to have his application granted under Standing Order No. 9. He must address himself to the particular issues always raised when an hon. Gentleman seeks to mov' a Motion under Standing Order No. 9.

Mr. Paget: In that case Mr. Speaker, I will not take it further than to say that in this case, on international law, this was a British ship upon the high seas, clear of national waters, and not subject to hot pursuit since the pursuit did not start until it was clear of national waters.
There can be no question that this is definite, there can be no question that it is urgent and there can be no question that it is of public importance and that it is a matter for which Her Majesty's Government are responsible. Indeed, when we provide Her Majesty with funds for the Navy we do so expressly for the better preservation of our trade and protection of our vessels upon the high seas.
I urgently say that if Standing Order No. 9 has any meaning at all, both upon the precedents and upon its own words, it must cover this case. This is a case of a private right subject to a public infringement in a matter in which the individual is entitled to public protection. I submit that it is exactly the kind of case for which Standing Order No. 9 is devised. If the Standing Order has any meaning at all it must cover this case.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the seizure on the high seas of a British trawler by an Icelandic ship of war.
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for giving me some measure of prior notice of his intention, as this has enabled me to refresh my memory on the precedents.
I find that this is not the first occasion on which the arrest of a trawler by a foreign Government has been raised in the House. I find that on 9th April, 1923, the Speaker of the day declined to accept such a Motion on the ground that
some new action on the part of a foreign Government."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th April, 1923; Vol. 163, c. 877.]

which involved matters of territorial waters and fishing rights was a continuing matter and that the arrest of the fishing trawler did not justify the application under Standing Order No. 9.
I do not think, therefore, that I can today hold this incident to fall within the category of what my distinguished predecessor, Mr. Speaker Peel, called, in words which have often been quoted, "an occurrence of some sudden emergency either in home or foreign affairs."
In consequence, I do not consider that the House ought to allow the Motion.

Mr. Paget: Further to the point of order——

Mr. Speaker: I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will accept the fact that the Speaker has given consideration to this matter.

Mr. Paget: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the 1923 case, the issue then was whether the territorial waters claimed extended for three or six miles, which was a continuing dispute. This is an entirely different case, because the incident was outside territorial waters, and there is no dispute——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman is doing what I hope the House would deprecate. This is a difficult decision that the Chair has to make from time to time. I hope that the House will accept it.

BILL PRESENTED

EROSION PREVENTION

Bill to enable river and other authorities to build erosion prevention works on river banks, presented by Mr. Anthony Kershaw; supported by Mr. David Webster, Mr. Corfield and Sir Gerald Nabarro: read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday and to be printed.[Bill 248.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before half-past Nine o'clock.—[Mr. Crossman.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[18TH ALLOTTED DAY] [2nd Series]

F111K AIRCRAFT CONTRACT

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, Southwest (Mr. Powell) to move the Motion, perhaps I might say that I have not selected the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) and his colleagues.

3.46 p.m.

Mr. Enoch Powell: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the contradictory statements made by Her Majesty's Government about the purchase of the United States F111K aircraft, and calls for a realistic statement of its prospective cost and potentialities.
The story of the F111K purchase already goes back a considerable period of time, almost to the beginning of the period of office of the Labour Party, for it was within six months of taking office that it announced to Parliament its decision to cancel the TSR2 aircraft.
That decision immediately opened two major questions to which the Government purported, at any rate, to address themselves in the following months. The first of those questions was whether the capability of the cancelled TSR2 aircraft was needed at all. The second was: supposing that the capabilty was needed, by what aircraft, or combination of aircraft, should it be provided?
It was almost a year later, in the framework of the Defence White Paper of 1966, that the Government came forward with their answers to those two questions. Their answer to the first question was in the affirmative; they believed that there was, and for many years to come would be, a requirement for the capability which the TSR2 aircraft would have fulfilled. Their answer to the second and consequential question was, however, a much more complicated one. It was that the upper end, so to speak, of that capability would be met by the purchase of the American F111 aircraft modified in certain respects to meet special British requirements.
However, they intended to purchase only 50 of these aircraft, and in order to

explain and justify that decision they introduced, like a deus ex machina, the assumption of an Anglo-French aircraft which has since become known normally by its initials—the AFVG. This aircraft, should it come into production as intended, would after the mid-'seventies take over some, but apparently not all, of the functions thitherto discharged by the 50111 aircraft. Such was the second and substantive answer which the Government gave the House and the country to the question which they had posed in the first place by their decision to cancel the TSR2 aircraft.
On the A.F.V.G., which we are not debating this afternoon, but on which much of the future prospects of the F111 purchase must turn, I would say only this: all the key decisions are evidently yet to be taken; the aircraft—its character, its practicability, its cost, and everything else about it—remains, I can hardly say in the air, but at any rate, in the realms of assumption. Meanwhile, the story of the F111 has taken some strange turnings.
The picture originally presented to the House when the decision to purchase these 50 aircraft was announced was that Britain was getting, by this decision, all the advantages of buying an aircraft off the peg; that within a massive American production for American purposes, a relatively small number of aircraft, under specially favourable and definite conditions, were to be obtained for the purposes of the United Kingdom.
Since then, almost every statement about the F111K originally made, almost every one of the advantages claimed for it, has become to a greater or lesser degree, doubtful. Right at the outset there was the strange episode, with which I do not propose to embarrass the right hon. Gentleman further by reminding him in detail, of the suppression, in connection with the American off-set of the dollar costs of the F111, of the fact which presently transpired, that most of that offset related not to direct United States purchases, but to purchases of British defence equipment by third parties.
All the salient characteristics of this aircraft, cost, performance and delivery, are now in a state of such doubt and obscurity that it has become urgently necessary that they should be cleared up


for the House and the country, by the Government.

Mr. Frank Allaun: If the right hon. Gentleman is so critical of the F111, will he tell the House and the country whether his party is for or against this purchase? Why is he not honest, like the Liberals? Many of us were against it, and said so. Will the right hon. Gentleman say, "Yes" or "No", whether he is in favour of this purchase?

Mr. Powell: Until some of the questions which I am to ask in the course of this debate have been ventilated and answered, no one can form a reasonable view about what is implicit in the purchase of these aircraft.
I come initially to the cost of the aircraft and, first, to the basic cost, without the additions or the modifications being made for British purposes. Two years ago, when the option was first entered into with the United States, the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Home Secretary describing the option arrangements, said:
We have a fixed maximum. We might pay less, but we could not pay more."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th April 1965; Vol. 693, c. 1287.]
That statement, that this ceiling price for the basic aircraft represents an absolute maximum, the outer limit of what we might at any time be required to pay, has been repeated consistently ever since then, until the very recent past.
For example, in the 196c Defence White Paper we were told:
The ceiling price for the basic aircraft—5·95 million United States dollars or about £2·1 million—covering production costs and a contribution to the United States research and development costs, will apply to the total purchase.…
So these expressions, these asseverations, were used repeatedly, month in and month out. Whatever doubt might attach to other elements of this purchase, one thing was certain: we had a fixed ceiling price for the basic aircraft.
Then, on 11th April, in answer to a Written Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing), the right hon. Gentleman introduced a new phrase into the hitherto stereotyped description. He said:
The unit cost of the 50 F111 Ks we have ordered remains, as hitherto, about £2½ million. This figure"—

and here come the novel words—
which excludes U.S. money inflation …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th April 1967; Vol. 744, c. 165.]
and then he continued with his description of it. Nothing else was changed, but the insertion of those words. The following day he used the same expression, "excluding United States money inflation", in an Oral Answer to a Question put to him by myself and other hon. Members.
What was the reason for this sudden paroxysm of precision by the right hon. Gentleman? Why were the time-honoured formulae which had done duty for so many months suddenly altered by the insertion of an expression, which, naturally, caught attention and led to questions? I can satisfy the curiosity of the House on that score. In the preceding week, on 6th April, the noble Lord the Minister without Portfolio, answering a Question in another place, had for the first time used that phrase. He was referring in that context to the matter of the supplementary ceiling for the modifications to which I shall come presently. Once the fatal words were said, they had to be used in this House, too. I think that we may be grateful to another place for having introduced an increased degree of candour into the description of the terms of the purchase of the basic aircraft.
The question now arises: what is involved in this qualification to the ceiling price, the maximum price that we have been hearing about for two years? The right hon. Gentleman tried to laugh it off in his usual fashion. He said "Why,every-one knows that; everyone knows that all these contracts are subject to escalation for United States inflation." He had not happened to mention it, nor had any of his colleagues happened to mention it until a week or two ago, when it happened to be mentioned, by chance, in another place.
But, said the Minister, the costs of the Polaris submarine were similarly subject to escalation of the American dollar costs. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell the House, later on, what has been the degree of escalation in the dollar costs of the Polaris submarine? He referred to the Phantom purchase. I shall come in a moment to a statement which


the Minister of State, Ministry of Technology, made on that subject, but the price of the Phantom aircraft was not declared by the then Government to the public or to the House. Still less was it, or the price of the Polaris submarine, made, as the fixed ceiling price of the basic F111 aircraft has been made, part of the Government's own case for purchasing that aircraft, and constantly urged in debate after debate upon those who had argued against the decision to cancel the TSR2 aircraft. It is, therefore, no use the right hon. Gentleman pretending that in this case the small print did not even need to be printed.
The right hon. Gentleman said that to date he had added "something over £100,000 per aircraft" to cover this little item. He said:
The ceiling price of £2·1 million for the basic aircraft is, however, subject to adjustment in the light of increases in the cost of labour and materials since April 1965 and to allow for this to date I am adding something over £100,000 per aircraft for purposes of costing forward defence plans at current price levels."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th April, 1967; Vol. 744, c. 188.]
We have had some information from the Ministry of Technology on the escalation of the cost of the Phantom aircraft. We have been told that the agreements for the purchase of Spey Phantom aircraft for the Royal Navy
are based on cost estimates provided by the United States Government. These include a factor of 3 per cent. per annum for inflation in the United States of America"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th April, 1967; Vol. 744, c. 338.]
If that is the figure which is to apply to the F111K, then by the time 1970 is reached there will have been an addition of between £250,000 and £300,000 to the cost of each aircraft. But perhaps this is not the basis in the case of the F111K. If so, may we be told by the Government on what basis the addition for the escalation of United States costs is to be made?
The Secretary of State has referred to increases in the costs of labour and materials. Is the value of those increases to be judged by some general index of United States inflation, as it is called; or is it to be related to some specific index of the materials and labour which enter into this aircraft; or is it to be related to the actual experience of the application of labour and materials to the manufac-

ture of this aircraft? Obviously, we must know which, and we must be told realistically and candidly what this will add to the cost of the basic aircraft. Incidentally, we shall want to know over how many years it is calculated. We know that it runs from the date of the first option, April, 1965. Will it run in the case of each aircraft to the date of the delivery of that aircraft?
Before I leave that point, I would draw the Secretary of State's attention to one fallacy—and it is a rather dangerous fallacy—into which he seems to be falling. In the reply of 12th April which I have quoted, he said:
… the unit cost of the F111K, in real terms, continues to be about £2½ million, as we have hitherto assumed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th April, 1967; Vol. 744, c. 187–8.]
The right hon. Gentleman is falling into a fallacy. Of course, when there is internal inflation, provided that that inflation proceeds uniformly and the money value of everything is lifted, the cost of any article in real terms remains constant.
But that does not apply when we are subject to the escalation in costs of an article which we are purchasing from abroad. Unless the international rate of exchange is altered, the consequence of any increase in the price of what we buy in dollars from the United States, whatever be the reason for that increase—whether it be United States inflation or any other cause—is to increase the real cost to this country and the amount of work which will have to be done by citizens of this country, which they might be applying to other purposes, in order to purchase these aircraft. Let us hear no more of the escalation of United States prices making no difference to the real costs in this country.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey): Surely the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the extent to which there is any difference between the cost inflationary effects of American rises and the effects over here depends entirely on the extent to which inflation in the two countries is parallel. If we have to pay more in Britain and the British £ is worth less in real terms, there is no difference at all.

Mr. Powell: The right hon. Gentleman has half seen the point. If the international rate of exchange is adjusted


to allow for the relative progress of inflation in the two countries, then the real cost will be the same. But as long as 2·80 dollars is the exchange rate of the American dollar, the more dollars we have to pay, the more we shall have to export in order to pay for those articles.

Mr. Stanley Orme: Nonsense.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: Would the right hon. Gentleman allow me to intervene? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Too much mathematical conversation is being conducted.

Mr. Powell: Perhaps right hon. and hon. Members opposite will give themselves the time and opportunity to reflect quietly on the point.
I come to the modifications of the basic F111 aircraft which convert it into the F111K, as we know it—the aircraft required for the purposes of this country. Originally, the idea was that modification would consist only in a difference of avionics. That was what the then Minister of Aviation said two years ago, when the option was entered into.
In July, 1966, however, it became known that the modifications went considerably beyond that and included a strengthened undercarriage. Certain information on that subject was disclosed in July last year. This, in turn, meant that the modifications to the basic aircraft for the F111K might be quite substantial. The right hon. Gentleman described them in November last as changes in configuration. The pressing reasons for these changes—I am talking, not about the avionics, but about the other modifications—have never satisfactorily been explained to the House. But from an early stage we were told—for example, in the Defence White Paper of 1966—that a ceiling price for these modifications was to be agreed with the United States Government. For example, the White Paper stated:
A ceiling price for the changes in the basic aircraft required by the Royal Air Force is to be agreed as soon as practicable.
That was February, 1966.
In March this year, I asked the right hon. Gentleman, who was then within a month of the final date for taking up the option to purchase the remaining 40 aircraft, whether he would obtain that

agreement before he closed with the option. He gave me a firm undertaking on 1st March, when he said:
… we shall not place a contract until we have the ceiling price agreed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1967; Vol. 742, c. 476–7.]
By the end of March we had placed the contract and a ceiling price had not been agreed.

Mr. Healey: indicated dissent.

Mr. Powell: There must be some marked reason why the right hon. Gentleman gave so firm, clear and explicit an understanding with a few weeks of the termination of the option and then found that he was unable to fulfil it. If it was so easy a matter to negotiate a fixed ceiling price for the modifications with the United States Government, it is difficult to account for the fact that, I am certain in good faith, the right hon. Gentleman gave me that reply on 1st March but failed to get the agreement before he closed with the option.
It is true that the right hon. Gentleman told us on 12th April that there had been "cost information from the United States Government which have a satisfactory assurance" that the total unit cost would be as assumed. That, however, is a very different matter. The right hon. Gentleman is no longer saying that he has any assurance from the United States Government, or that he has any agreement with them. All he is saying is that they have given him information on which he feels assured. The Government have felt assurance on many subjects on which subsequently that assurance has proved to be less than well founded.
There are good reasons for our anxieties in the way in which these modifications and their cost are regarded on the other side of the Atlantic. The right hon. Gentleman will, no doubt, have seen what was said by Mr. Henry Kuss and was reported in Aviation Week and Space Technology last month.
Some of the modifications required
said Mr. Kuss—
are very developmental. Calculation of the British share will be made after total developmental costs have been determined, a process which will take several years. The British will also pay full developmental costs of any non-common components"—
that is, not common to the United States and ourselves—
which they want incorporated".


If that is how it looks on the other side of the Atlantic, it is no wonder that the right hon. Gentleman was unable to agree a ceiling price for the modifications by 1st April this year.
I have touched on the price of basic aircraft, which, we now know, is subject to a major escalation, and on the price of the modifications, which has not yet been quantified except by the assumptions of the Government themselves. We have learned of other items. There was, for example, the discovery that £600 per bomb would have to be spent on the modification of our existing stock of bombs for use in the F111. It would be wise, therefore, that the Government should now state categorically whether there are any other still undisclosed consequential costs, loopholes, or escalations which have to be taken into account in measuring the cost to this country of the F111A aircraft.
So far, of course, one has been talking only about the original aircraft by themselves. We are not even talking about the initial spares, because the initial spares and much that is necessary for this aircraft to fly at all when it arrives is not included in the figures or in the agreements and understandings, such as they are, about which I have been speaking.
There is a rough, normal, general sort of ratio of something like one to one between the basic cost of an aircraft and the spares, initially and over a period of operation. Here, however, we have no guarantee whatever of what the cost of being able to operate these aircraft initially and in subsequent years will be. We are told that we shall obtain spares on the same terms as those on which they will be available to the United States forces; but on what terms and at what cost they are likely to be available, if at all, to the United States forces we have no knowledge whatever.
So much for cost. I come now to performance. Here there has been the opposite of an escalation. There has here been a progressive diminuendo in confidence about the performance of this aircraft.

Mr. John Rankin: After that dissertation on probably costs, would the right hon. Gentleman help us by giving the House an estimated figure of what the cost of the aircraft will be?

Mr. Powell: I will not say that that is a function which can be safely left to the Government, but it is a function which is the duty of the Government. I hope that in response to the invitation of the Opposition, they will at last perform that function in the course of this debate.

Mr. Rankin: Surely——

Mr. Powell: I hope that the hon. Member will not take up the time of the House by suggesting that any useful purpose could be served, against the background of the uncertainties which I have displayed, by a necessarily uninformed guess being made as to the total cost of this aircraft. The purpose of this debate is to obtain that information from the Government.
Now, performance. Way back in December, 1965, the right hon. Gentleman said that
in many respects the F111A is superior to the TSR2".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th December, 1965; Vol. 722, c. 915.]
Then he modified it a little and in November, 1966, he said:
In all respects the performance of the F111K is superior to the requirement for the TSR2".
Finally, however, the right hon. Gentleman referred to the happy existence of
a substantial buffer in case of any drop in the performance of the American aircraft".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1966; Vol. 736, c. 423.]
A still more ominous note has been sounded, and, once again, in another place, for it has not escaped attention that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, on 6th April, said simply this:
we have had definite assurances that the aircraft will meet the R.A.F.'s minimum requirements".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 6th April, 1967; Vol. 281, c. 1072.]
I wonder how much further it will come down the scale before, if at all, we actually get this aircraft.
At least on delivery, what is sometimes rather unpleasingly described as 'slippage' is already a fact. The White Paper of 1966 said that full delivery of the 50 aircraft was guaranteed not later than January, 1970. In reply to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) on 16th November last year, we were told that the first aircraft was scheduled for delivery at the end of 1968 and the rest


of the first 10 in the immediately following months.
When, however, the Ministry of Defence announced at the end of March that it had finally closed with the option and ordered the remaining 40 aircraft, we were told only that deliveries were planned to begin "in 1969". That is a rather ominous alteration of the tone when we were previously told six months earlier that deliveries would begin in 1968. How much further, then, will the delivery and the programme of these aircraft slip?
There is a growing sense of mystery and doubt surrounding the provision of these aircraft for other purchasers. I asked the Secretary of State a few days ago whether he expected that the F111K aircraft ordered for Great Britain would be the first production F111 aircraft to be manufactured. "No" was his answer. Evidently, therefore, he is aware that there are other production aircraft in the pipeline ahead of ours.
It would, I am sure, be reassuring if we could be told how many and for whom are those production aircraft in the pipeline ahead of ours so that, presumably, some of the earlier faults and weaknesses may be modified or ironed out before our own production run obtains. It would certainly go far towards reassuring those who still expect to see this aircraft performing what has been held out for it if we were told what is our place in the production line now that we have put in the order.
There is more than a little ground already for the fear that the Fill purchase could prove a fiasco which was costly not only in money. The point has surely been reached when the House and the country are entitled to have an unsparing and realistic appraisal of the facts and the prospects in full, leaving out nothing and extenuating nothing. That will certainly be a novel experience in the story of this purchase.
I have no doubt that, if he decides to face it out and bluff his way through, the right hon. Gentleman will be able to get round a few more corners yet, but the time will come when the facts about the wisdom or unwisdom of the Government's decision will out. He will serve the House and the nation much better by being absolutely frank and candid now, and that is what we ask of him.

4.21 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey): The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) makes two types of contribution to our discussions on defence. On the big issues, he confines himself to an oracular ambiguity which enables him to pose as a profound thinker without ever saying what precisely his policy is. On the small issues, all we get from him is a pedantic nitpicking. He builds up elaborate structures of argument to a dizzy height—but always on false or inadequate foundations and always of staggering irrelevance to the issues which the House should be discussing.
What we had this afternoon was an example of his second style. I shall deal with the points that he made as I go along, but my main purpose—and I am grateful to him for giving me the opportunity to do it—is to explain yet again, and as fully as I can within the limits of national security, what we want this aircraft for, the sort of specification required to meet its rôle, how the F111K measures up to the operational requirement, what it costs, how the dollar cost is being covered, and, finally, though my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Technology will speak at greater length on this, the part played by the F111K in an overall programme of aircraft procurement which is calculated to preserve the British aircraft industry as a technological leader in Europe and the world—[Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite obviously think that that is a matter at which to snigger, but we on this side of the House believe that the aircraft industry has a future in this country, though only on the basis of the sort of programme which we have given to it. In the course of my speech, I will deal with the points which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen may want to make later.
First, I want to explain what the aircraft is for, its rôle in the Royal Air Force, and indeed in the Government's defence policy as a whole. I want to make it clear to hon. Members on the Liberal benches and others who are under a misapprehension here that the F111K is not being bought to replace the V-bombers as a strategic nuclear delivery system. Britain's contribution to the strategic deterrent will pass from the V-bombers in a few years' time


to the Polaris submarines. The F111K, like the TSR2 which it replaces in our programme, is planned as a tactical strike and reconnaissance aircraft delivering conventional weapons in the strike rôle. Of course, it has the capability for carrying nuclear weapons: so has a balloon; but that is not why we are buying it. If we wanted it for dropping nuclear bombs, we would not buy the highly sophisticated electronic equipment which it will carry to permit accurate delivery of conventional weapons on point targets. One does not need that sort of thing with a nuclear bomber. The V-bombers themselves, when they hand over their nuclear rôle to the Polaris submarine force, will supplement the F111K for tactical strike with conventional weapons against targets whose defences can be penetrated by aircraft less sophisticated than the F111K.
The Liberal Party seems to believe that the R.A.F. will not need an aircraft for reconnaissance and tactical strike at all in the 1970s, or at least not one so sophisticated as the F111K. Do let us remember—and I wish that newspapers in the country would remember it—that this is an aircraft which comes into squadron service in two years' time, in 1969; and I will deal with the delivery points which the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West made in a moment. Therefore, the important question is to decide whether we are likely to need this type of capability in the 10 years following 1969, and not whether we are likely to need it or whether it would be relevant in the 1980s or 1990s.
Hon. Members on the Liberal benches and some other hon. Members believe that such an aircraft is unnecessary in Europe and that Britain will have no military responsibilities whatever outside Europe in 1969 requiring it. If that is what they believe, they are wrong on both points.
As we said in this year's Defence White Paper, the aim of our diplomacy is to produce a situation outside Europe in which the local peoples can live at peace with one another without the continuing presence of external forces. But as I indicated earlier this afternoon, it is not possible, at this moment, to say when this can be achieved, and the right hon. Gentleman particularly asked me not to try to suggest a date for it. I do not know anyone who thinks that it would be

possible to produce such a situation and to withdraw all our forces from outside Europe within two years from now. To the extent that we can make progress in reducing our forces outside Europe—we have done much already in this respect and we hope to do more, as again I said earlier—our Commonwealth partners overseas are likely to want us most of all to retain a capability for helping them in case of need with the sophisticated air and naval forces which they themselves cannot now afford. That is a point which was put strongly to me by the two Commonwealth Governments with whom I discussed this type of problem last week in South-East Asia.
This might still be the case even after circumstances had permitted us to leave our bases in the area altogether. My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) believes that we should maintain a commitment to help Australia in her defence, even though he believes we should leave Singapore and Malaysia in the immediate future. It is difficult to think of any contribution which we could make to Australia's defence which would not require us to have this type of capability in our armoury.
In my view, that is looking further ahead than we can clearly see at present. But, even in that situation—and still more while we have forces based outside Europe—we shall have to have aircraft with the capability to provide tactical strike and reconnaissance wherever our troops may be. Tactical strike and reconnaissance is the military umbrella which we must have to protect our forces —land, sea, or air—from attack. It would be militarily and morally indefensible to keep forces where they were subject to attack, or to send forces somewhere where they were likely to be subject to attack, unless we could provide them with the protection which they would then need. This protection applies to all stages of a crisis—before as well as after fighting has broken out.
First, and critically important, is the reconnaissance capability of the aircraft. Unless we know what is going on, we cannot make the necessary military dispositions or take the necessary diplomatic action which may, by themselves, nip potential trouble in the bud and prevent fighting from breaking out. In 1964, reconnaissance aircraft provided us with


the first information of a developing crisis over Cyprus, without which we might have been unable to prevent general war in the Eastern Mediterranean and perhaps in Europe as a whole. Without reconnaissance aircraft, the Americans could not have obtained the information of Soviet missile sites in Cuba which may have enabled them to prevent a global thermo-nuclear holocaust.

Mr. Lubbock: As the right hon. Gentleman has correctly said, there is a difference between thinking that one does not need a tactical strike and reconnaissance aircraft at all and thinking that one does not need an aircraft of this complexity and sophistication. However, does the right hon. Gentleman think that it would have been of any advantage to this country to have had an aircraft of this type in service at the time of the Cyprus crisis?

Mr. Healey: The hon. Gentleman must understand that the Minister of Defence, like the Air Staff, must calculate what sort of weapons we may be up against in five, 10 or even 15 years' time. We are now talking about a weapon which does not even come into service until 1969, but which must remain an effective weapon for at least 10 years after it has come into service. I recall that the hon. Gentleman suggested the other day that we could do this reconnaissance work with missiles.

Mr. Lubbock: No. I said that it could be done with satellites.

Mr. Healey: But we do not ourselves have any satellites of this nature. In any case, satellites take days to provide the relevant information. They provide long-term reconnaissance information, but they would be of no value when dealing with, for example, the sort of situation in Cyprus.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: Mr. Christopher Mayhew (Woolwich, East) rose——

Mr. Healey: I cannot keep giving way. I hope that my hon. Friend will allow me to get on with my speech without having to bob up and down mid-sentence. I must put to the House what is inevitably a long and complex argument, and I must get on.
A reconnaissance capability is necessary to prevent a crisis from developing

to the point of war. The capability for tactical strike is equally important for this purpose. Indeed, in this modern age, more and more of our weapons are best fulfilling their primary function if they are never called upon to display their capabilities in action.
Take our experience during confrontation, one of the most successful military campaigns in the history of the Commonwealth. Precisely because the fighting was always kept at the level of guerrilla fighting, we were not required, in three years' jungle fighting in Borneo, to use a combat aircraft once to fire a rocket or to drop a bomb. But if we were not known to have the capability for doing so, our opponents could have shot down the helicopters on which our forces depended for their supply; and, indeed, could have bombed our bases in Singapore and Malaysia.
I believe that our military rôle outside Europe may increasingly be police action conducted at a low level of military conflict. But if we are to keep such actions at that level, all our military and political experience shows that such operations should be embarked upon only if supported by strike forces as a deterrent against escalation by the other side.
This dual capability to deter attack by reconnaissance and the known capacity for strike is as necessary at sea as on land and our possession of the F111K will be particularly important when, with the phasing out of the carrier force in the middle 1970s, the Royal Navy loses its own capacity for strike.
I come to the question asked in the Liberal Amendment: do we really need an advanced aircraft of this type and, if so, how many of them do we need for this particular purpose? This aircraft is as necessary in Europe as outside. Indeed, when the party opposite first defined the specification for the TSR2 it had the European theatre primarily in mind—and it is in the European theatre that we are liable to be up against very sophisticated weapons indeed. If Britain did not have such a capability, then the whole of Western Europe would depend on France and the United States alone for this critical element in its defence, and I cannot believe that that is really what the Liberal Party wants.
The main rôle of the FIIIK is, then, for tactical reconnaissance and strike with conventional weapons. I now turn to its specification—to why we need an advanced aircraft with the particular performance characteristics of the F111K.

Mr. Powell: I think that the right hon. Gentleman inadvertently said that he was describing its main rôle. However, if he said that intentionally, would he indicate what are its other rôles?

Mr. Healey: It has a small interception capability and, as I mentioned earlier, a capability to carry nuclear weapons, though that is not why we are buying it.

Mr. Powell: Not now.

Mr. Healey: Not at all. When I was in Canberra last year I discovered that, when the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West was teaching Greek at the university there, he had the nickname "textual pervert", the reason being that he was liable to base extraordinarily fantastic conclusions on some very simple use of words.
The main rôle of the F111K is for tactical reconnaissance and strike with conventional weapons and, as I was saying, I turn to the question of its specification. I do not believe that there can be any argument between me and the Opposition at least about this, since the operational requirement for which the Government are buying the F111K is, in almost all respects, the same as that laid down by the former Conservative Administration for the TSR2.
The basic point is that the performance of this aircraft must be such that a potential enemy knows that it can successfully carry out its tasks. Unless agreement can be reached among the great powers to stop the spread of sophisticated conventional weapons—and there is, unfortunately, no sign of this at present—it is likely that a number of comparatively small and poor countries will still be obtaining, in the 1970s as in the 1960s, highly sophisticated advanced weapons at cut prices from the Soviet Union, and, perhaps, from China. If our tactical strike and reconnaissance aircraft is to have its necessary deterrent power against countries so equipped, it must have maximum tactical flexibility, high

speed advanced performance, both at high altitude and at very low level, and an accurate means of navigating and aiming its weapons.

Mr. F. A. Burden: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that if this aircraft is to carry out its tactical performance and general requirement properly, it might well have to be equipped with tactical nuclear weapons? If so, why is the right hon. Gentleman apparently attempting to dodge the fact that tactical nuclear weapons might have to be carried, although Polaris might have the job of delivering the strategic missiles?

Mr. Healey: I do not believe that it is likely, necessary or desirable, and to this extent I agree, in part, with the point often made by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West on this issue. Certainly outside Europe I cannot conceive of a requirement for the dropping of tactical nuclear weapons. In Europe it is another matter, but we can debate that on another occasion.

Mr. R. T. Paget: Mr. R. T. Paget (Northampton) rose——

Mr. Healey: I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will allow me to continue for a little longer. I will give way every five or 10 minutes, but I cannot conduct a running conversation with every hon. Member in the Chamber.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Mr. Hugh Fraser (Stafford and Stone) rose——

Mr. Healey: I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman later. I know that he helped to lay down the performance characteristics and will not quarrel with me about the need for an aircraft like the F111K.
There is no doubt that variable geometry—a characteristic which the TSR2 did not have—has greatly eased the designer's task of combining all these characteristics in a single aircraft. In addition to the characteristics I have mentioned, we need a substantial range or radius of action, not only in relation to possible operational missions, but because good ferry range greatly adds to the ease and speed with which we can deploy our aircraft anywhere in the world. The mobility of our air forces


—and this is critically important—is increasingly important, not only to our strategic flexibility, but also to reduce our need for the base facilities which would otherwise be necessary.
It was this combination of requirements which led the party opposite, when in power, to develop the operational requirement for the TSR2. I have considered whether I could give the House some details of the operational requirement for the TSR2, but I have regretfully come to the conclusion that it would be a mistake to do so, for its own sake and because it might create a precedent which neither the present nor any future Government would wish to follow.
I can give some details of the performance of the Fl11K as it is now developing and I shall do so in a moment. What I want (to say now is that I think that the Opposition were right in requiring the special requirements they laid down for the TSR2, and it is still this requirement against which we must judge the F111K. In fact, on the whole, I think I am right in saying that the official Opposition, as distinct from the Liberal opposition, have contended, not that the requirement is not there, but that we need more than 50 F111Ks to fulfil it effectively.
It is the fact that they themselves planned to buy 158 TSR2s. The Conservative Government had to envisage buying a very large number of TSR2s for industrial reasons and, in the absence of any collaborative programme, they were unable to spread the production economically over a number of years. To have bought only 50 TSR2s would have meant a unit cost of something like £9 million per aircraft. It was only by buying more than they needed that, in fact, they could hope to justify the enormous expenditure on research and development. required.
We take a different view. On the best judgment we can make of the development of the military capability of potential enemies, we believe that the V-bombers will be adequate as tactical strike aircraft during the early years of the 1970s, provided that we have the minimum force of advanced aircraft with the type of specification I have been discussing. But, by the mid-1970s, we shall have to replace the V-bombers in this rôle by an aircraft with comparable perform-

ance to the F111, and that is the rôle of the AFVG.
I do not deny that the F111K is an expensive programme—though, as I shall show, it is many hundreds of millions of £s cheaper than the programme we inherited—but I cannot accept the argument that these aircraft are so expensive that we would not be prepared or could not afford to use them. It is a mistake to get carried away here by unit costs. The fact is that the cost of these aircraft, though high, is not nearly so high as that of many other items the loss of which we must be prepared to contemplate—submarines, frigates, army units. Indeed, even allowing for R. and D. expenditure on the AFVG, and including the F111K credit-phased capital repayment, the whole programe will be at most about 4 per cent. of the annual defence budget in the 1970s. This is a premium we must be prepared to pay if we are to have this essential capability in the requisite numbers.
What is far more relevant is that we have satisfied ourselves, as a result of series of detailed scientifically-based studies, that this force, with aircraft of this specification, will be adequate to carry out the tasks which we envisage as potentially realistic for it in the 1970s. We must have equipment of an adequate standard at the right time when the lives of men are at stake. This is the basis of our whole policy.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to intervene in his very interesting argument to correct him on two points. He said that the former Conservative Government wanted to build 158 TSR2s, but that the Government agreed to build 110. Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman must remember that there was a need, and is one, for a replacement for the Canberra in Europe, using the smaller type of atomic bomb in the tactical rôle, and that is vital to the argument.

Mr. Healey: With respect, the programme which I inherited in my Ministry included 158 TSR2s. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to develop his other point if he catches Mr. Speaker's eye.
All I would say in this phase, and I say it as much to my hon. Friends as to the Opposition, is that defence in the present age is appallingly expensive, and


it is getting more expensive every year. That is why we in the present Government give such high priority to disarmament—[Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite do their party discredit by sniggering every time disarmament is mentioned. I would remind them that the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) himself made disarmament the core of his own White Paper in 1957. We think that he was right to do so, even if he was wrong in regard to other aspects of defence policy.
The fact is that, until we can achieve some control of armaments, we must try to restrict our commitments and get maximum value for money in the weapons we need for the commitments which remain. But there is in every field a minimum level of performance which can only be fixed by the most thorough analysis of the potential threat below which a weapon is worse than useless. To provide our forces with equipment which is not sufficient for their tasks is not only to waste all the money thus expended, but also to waste human life; and I do not believe that any responsible Government would ever knowingly condemn its soldiers, sailors or airmen to death by acting in such a way.
I know that the House is interested to know about the current state of the project, how it is progressing, and to what extent it will be likely to meet our requirement. I will try to make my remarks brief. We have already given a great deal of information to the House, and the project has been under the continuous glare of publicity some of it inaccurate and malicious. On the other hand, to hon. Members who are interested in reading a good layman's summary, I would commend the article in "Flight International" of 30th March.
My staff and the Ministry of Technology have kept in constant close touch with the American Department of Defense and the main U.S. contractors—General Dynamics and Pratt and Whitney during the last two years. We have our own project team in the United States alongside the U.S.A.F. Systems Command and the contractor. Royal Air Force aircrew have flown the aircraft. Sir John Grandy, the newlyappointed Chief of the Air Staff, has flown the aircraft, and I hope that he

will not mind my breaching the normal rules in this respect by quoting him as saying that flying this aircraft was to him a quantum jump like flying his very first jet, and that variable geometry gives a new capability to the aircraft which is a new dimension in flying. Royal Air Force technical personnel are currently working out detailed servicing arrangements and procedures.
All this may seem obvious, but I make these points because so many people seem to think that the Royal Air Force will be buying a pig in a poke about which it knows nothing. The fact is that we completed a very thorough review before the implementing sales order was signed last month. We satisfied ourselves that the aircraft could be expected to give the range, speed and weapon carrying capacity we require.
On range, even after allowing for the drag problem—on which the United States Air Force is confident it will recover the deficiencies—it will be at least 500 miles above the TSR2 requirement, and extra range is, of course, a great bonus and can always be exchanged for extra pay load. On speed and extra manoeuvrability, although I do not want to play down the problems arising from intake matching, we are confident that it will meet our requirements. I should explain that the problem is more serious in the context of the use of the aircraft as an interceptor; but, even so, American confidence can be seen from the scale of the programme on which they are embarking.

Mr. Victor Goodhew: The Secretary of State said just now that the range of the aircraft was 500 miles greater than the TSR2 requirement. How does it compare with the TSR2 performance?

Mr. Healey: We never had a fully-developed TSR2, so it is difficult to say. I can say that the ferry range of this aircraft is substantially in excess of that planned even for the TSR2, and 500 miles in excess of the requirement laid down for the TSR2, which is another matter.
But we tend, when concentrating on these two aspects, to overlook the other parts of the whole aircraft system which are equally essential to the effectiveness


and survivability of the aircraft, and which are of great importance to us when our numbers are comparatively few. I refer here to terrain following capability, on which the R. and D programme has been highly successful; the navigation-attack system where already on the Mark I avionics, greater accuracies than expected have been achieved, which gives great encouragement for the Mark II system; the ease of servicing and maintainability which is so important to the use of the aircraft from overseas bases, and where it will be vastly superior to the TSR2.
As regards bomb load, comparative capabilities are interesting. With its wings swept back, the F111K can carry a maximum load three times that of the Canberra and only slightly less than that of the Vulcan. With its wings unswept the F11l load is over five times that of the Canberra and more than one-and-half times that of the Vulcan. That, as the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) knows, is a very formidable difference indeed.
We have good reason to be confident that the R.A.F. will get an aircraft which will meet its requirements. Moreover, by 1968—next year—it will be already in service in the United States Air Force and the Royal Australian Air Force. So there is a good chance that its initial teething troubles will be overcome by the time we take it. We currently plan to start delivery at the end of 1968, but we may ask to be allowed to take the aircraft a little later so as to be able to phase it with the introduction of some British systems which it is essential to have operating by the time when we aim to start operating the aircraft themselves. My hon. Friend will say something about one of the systems concerned when he winds up the debate. The delivery of the last aircraft will be as planned in the original schedule.

Mr. Powell: Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say, or to imply, that this aircraft would be in squadron service with other countries before it is with us?

Mr. Healey: Yes, certainly. It will be in service with the United States Air Force next year. I do not know what the Australian plans are for squadron service.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: If the engineer manufacturers are unable to get rid of the handling troubles which they do not know how to cure at the moment, will we postpone delivery until after the fix, or will we take it without satisfactory handling?

Mr. Healey: I have indicated that we shall not take the aircraft unless it meets our specifications.
Now I turn to the question of costs and the implications for the defence budget of our decision to cancel the TSR2 and to purchase a small number of F111s. Let me make clear what sort of costs we are talking about. I have seen some very misleading comparisons in the Press. The Daily Telegraph today, for example, draws some very weird and wonderful conclusions by comparing the figure for research development and production alone for the TSR2, a figure which was substantially lower than when we cancelled the aircraft, with a 10-year programme cost for the F111, which is nearly three times as high as the R.D. and P. costs. It is essential to compare like with like, although I do not blame any hon. Member for getting confused as this is very difficult. I hope, therefore, that the House will allow me to present as a whole this part of my speech. It is inevitably rather complex. Let me dispose of the point about bombs.
Our bomb stock will have to be modified for any supersonic aircraft. It would have to have been modified for the Royal Navy Phantoms which the previous Government were buying and the TSR2 and the AFVG or almost any combat bomber in the 1970s. Therefore, there is nothing peculiar about the F111 in this respect. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone will inform the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, Southwest more closely if he wishes.
As I have done in the past, I shall talk mainly of programme costs since it is not sufficient merely to concentrate on initial capital costs. By programme costs I mean the costs of research and development and production of the aircraft itself and its support equipment, the cost of initial spares and loan interest, together with the recurring costs of spares—petrol, oil and lubricants and squadron personnel—over a period of time. Necessarily at the outset of the programme


there must be an element of estimating as regards some at least of the component parts of these programme costs; but this applies to both programmes, though, as I shall mention later, the budgetary risks in the TSR2 programme were considerably greater. Moreover, for reasons of defence budgeting, it may be desirable to vary from time to time the way in which payments are made under the American Credit Agreement.
As I said, we must relate costs to time-scale. I propose to compare the F111 and the TSR2 in three different ways with a different timescale in each. In the first I take the 15 year period from March, 1965—when we cancelled TSR2—to March, 1980. This is a long period but it allows me to take fully into account the changes we made in the forward plans for the tactical strike reconnaissance force—i.e. a small purchase of F111s, the retention of the V-bombers, and our complete planned buy of the Anglo-French VG in the strike rôle to replace the V-bombers and later the Buccaneers. On the TSR2 side of the equation it allows for 158 TSR2s as planned by the Conservative Government, and for the replacement of the RN Buccaneers; however, that might have been done in the TSR2 era. It also means that all the costs pre-1965 on the TSR2 can be excluded from each side, and on the F111 side I allow for all subsequent cancellation charges. Hon. Members will agree that this is a fair comparison, however we take it. I have done my calculations at current price levels and have, therefore, adjusted the early 1965 TSR2 figures by 10 per cent. This is a very moderate figure, in my view, as I shall make clear in the next stage of my speech.
What emerges is that over the 15 years from April, 1965, to March, 1980, the TSR2 programme as planned by the previous Administration and adjusted, as I have explained, would have cost over £700 million more than the cost of the programme we have adopted. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I am giving the figures now. Of course, it is not possible to achieve perfect accuracy when looking at costs, but these are the best cost figures we have been able to work out; and the gross figures here are £1,700 million for the TSR2 programme—the programme costs over the whole period

—as against £1,000 million of the F111K and the Anglo-French VG programme. This is a very sizeable figure indeed, going far beyond any area of doubt about estimating assumption. Readers of the Sunday Express may be interested to know that it represents 140 hospitals.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Sir Ian Orr-Ewing (Hendon, North) rose——

Mr. Healey: If I may complete this part of my speceh I will give way to the hon. Member later.
My second comparison is simpler. It is over 10 years; and in this I compare the programme costs of 50 F111s and 50 TSR2s to March, 1976, although for many reasons, as I have already said, 50 TSR2s would have been a very unrealistic programme involving a unit cost of some £9 million an aircraft. But I make the comparison nevertheless, because it allows me to establish in absolute terms comparative costs of our alternative solutions. Here over this 10-year period we come out with a saving of just under £300 million or 60 hospitals. Under these parameters the cost of 50 TSR2s comes out at £610 million as against £336 million for 50 F111s.
The figure I have given for programme costs of the 50 Fills is somewhat higher than that I gave a year ago for a number of reasons. First, we now plan to make certain payments within the 10-year period which previously fell outside it. Secondly, the figures include an element for contingencies, and for wage/ material inflation. Thirdly, the estimated cost of support items has increased mainly owing to the closer definition of British support equipment such as simulators and reconnaissance pods; and finally further interest will arise on the credit elements of all these changes. Further, only £10 million of the increase is in dollar expenditure, and the running cost element within this total has come down compared with our estimates a year ago, because we are now able to quantify the advantages of large-scale American production in the price we shall pay for spares. Finally, the new estimate for F111 costs includes a figure for cancellation charges on the TSR2.
My third comparison brings the time scale even closer to the present. Almost


£200 million of this £300 million difference over the next 10 years arises in the two-year period from 1968 to 1970, at a time when the R.A.F. programme in other fields—ground attack, transport, maritime—is also very heavily committed and would have been very much more heavily committed still if we had gone on with the P1 154 and the HS681.
In short, however we look at it, whatever period we take, and whatever comparison we take, the solution we have adopted has very significant defence budget advantages.
Now a word about the two items of critical importance to the comparisons—the TSR2 R, D and production costs, and the comparable arrangements for the F111. This is where the guesses made by the right hon. Gentleman go wildly astray. I am puzzled by the emphasis some hon. Members opposite have placed on the wage/material cost inflation in the F111 programme. I am even more puzzled by the suggestion that in some sense this has been a deadly secret, a suggestion made in a melodramatic article by Mr. Chapman Pincher in the Daily Express on 22nd April. This type of provision is normal in contract procedures, and it was referred to in the Daily Express itself as long ago as 19th August last year, in an article from its Washington correspondent, Mr. Ross Mark. I can only assume that Mr. Pincher spends so much time reading other people's writings that he does not have very much time to read his own newspaper. The Tory Government accepted such provision in the case of their own purchase of Phantoms from the United States, although they said nothing to the House about it, and I do not complain about that. It is quite a normal thing.
Now let us see, however, what the Tory Government did on the TSR2. Here I would refer the House to the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on the Ministry of Aviation account for 1964–65.The Report reads:
The contractor submitted prices based on target costs which, if the targets had been achieved, would have reduced the price for development and production to £650 million but provided no upper limit to the Exchequer's liability.
In fact, as I told the House two years ago, the manufacturers were totally unable to offer a fixed price delivery. Any

further substantial cost increase, not only for inflation reasons, but also because of developmental difficulties, would have fallen on the British Government alone. I think I am being very generous to the TSR2 programme in accepting the March 1965 estimate of cost for purposes of my comparison, for in 1965 the project had already escalated by £400 million, or 150 per cent., in the previous four years and had at least three more years to go before delivery started. In fact, the original estimate for R and D for the TSR2 made by the Tory Government was £48 million. It had risen to £280 million by the time the project was cancelled, with three years still to go, in March, 1965.
Let us set this total of unlimited liability on the TSR2 programme against the arrangements we have made for the F111. We have a ceiling price of £2·1 million on the basic aircraft, subject to the adjustment for escalation in wage and material costs from April, 1965. The point I was trying to make to the right hon. Gentleman was that if our wage and material costs escalate similarly, as they have broadly ever since the war, then in fact the cost to us in terms of real resources will not change, because we shall be paying with money which buys less in British goods. Although we are paying a higher amount, the two things will balance out. If the right hon. Gentleman tries to think about it for a few moments, he will see that I am right on that.
For the cost of the special British features we obtained up-to-date information in March before proceeding——

Mr. Stephen Hastings: Mr. Stephen Hastings (Mid-Bedfordshire) rose——

Mr. Healey: I ask the hon. Gentleman to let me finish the cost part. Then I will give way to the two hon. Members opposite who have sought to interrupt me.
We obtained up-to-date information before proceeding with the order for the balance of 40 aircraft and will soon have agreed a fixed ceiling. When I say "soon", I am not talking about years hence, as the right hon. Gentleman attempted to suggest in a quotation from Aviation Week. I am talking about the next month or so.
The information we obtained in March confirmed our earlier view that, ignoring


the inflation adjustment to the basic ceiling, we could be quite satisfied that the unit cost of the F111K with the British equipment continued to be about £2½ million, as we had always said.
The key difference between this position and that which faced us in the TSR2 case lies in the degree of financial risk that lay before us. I cannot believe that anybody who has any experience of cost escalation in real terms in a new aircraft programme—some hon. Members obviously have a lot of experience of this; I have just quoted one example—can deny that our arrangement on the F111 severely restricts our liability and confines the degree of financial risk to the very limited extent of money inflation.
Compare this with the steep increases in the TSR2 programme over the years, which cannot be explained away by changes in either the operational requirement, which stayed very stable, or in money values. Moreover, as I have indicated, there would have been no upper limit to the Exchequer's liability in the face of the likelihood of further development difficulties in such a complex programme. It baffles the imagination to assume, as I have generously assumed in presenting this argument, that over the following two years of the TSR2 programme there would have been none of the sorts of difficulties we had in the first four years. On the other hand, whatever work has to be done to overcome the present F111 difficulties will not affect the ceiling price. I submit that, for such a major project, this represents as good a control over our ultimate liability as we could ever hope to get.
It is no good hon. Members opposite taking refuge in the fact that there is no ceiling price for spares. Here again, our liability is limited, although in a different way, in that we shall be able, as with the other American aircraft we are buying, to take advantage of the American co-operative logistics system under which we pay the same price as the United States Air Force. This provides us with a sound safeguard as regards price and is the straight answer to any critics who, on the one hand, accept that our arrangement on the aircraft is a good one but, on the other, carp at it by suggesting that we are wide open on the spares front.
The fact is that we shall buy at the same price as the American Air Force, with the advantage of lower individual prices because of mass production to meet its requirements. We shall save on stock holding costs, too, because we shall be buying from American Air Force stocks, but we shall not be compelled to accept American Air Force scales for spares: we shall fix our own.
Besides the normal provision for wage/material cost inflation, there is only one other way in which the cost of this aircraft might conceivably increase. The special modifications we require for the Royal Air Force are exceptions to the basic ceiling price. As I have explained, they will be covered in the supplemental ceiling in a few weeks' time, and we are satisfied that they will bring the total figure up to that of £2½ million which was our original target.
It is not unlikely that either the American Air Force or ourselves might decide at some stage in the aircraft's operation or development to introduce some further modification. This would obviously be an extra item for which we should pay if we thought it worthwhile. If the American Air Force made a proposal which we did not think would be of value to us, we could reject it, though for production reasons the aircraft we received might have it installed, even though we were not paying for it.
The 10-year programme cost figures which I have quoted include a contingency to cover this possibility, but there is no evidence available at present to suggest that this contingency is likely to arise. The really important point—I stress this to the House—is that the cost of overcoming the present development difficulties in the United States will not—I repeat, not—affect the basic ceiling price which we have agreed.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Sir Ian Orr-Ewing rose——

Mr. Hastings: Mr. Hastings rose——

Mr. Healey: I now give way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate to which hon. Gentleman he gives way?

Mr. Healey: I give way to the first of the two hon. Gentlemen who interrupted me.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: These figures are interesting, but it is impossible to make comparisons, because the right hon. Gentleman does not break down the items within each category. In comparing these two sets of figures, how much has the right hon. Gentleman allowed for R and D on the AFVG during this time scale? He told us that he had allowed for this. How much has been allowed?

Mr. Healey: In broad terms, I allowed up to £150 million falling on Britain for research and development on the AFVG, but, as I said—I do not want to mislead the House here—the first com parison, the one which I made on the 15-year cost period, inevitably involves greater degrees of tolerance in cost estimating than the one over the next 10 years when we are dealing much more with quantities of which we have experience and about which we know. The point I make on the 15-year comparison, which is the only one into which the AFVG can sensibly be brought as part of the equation, is that the cost difference there is so enormous that no minor adjustment of the estimating conventions could enable hon. Members opposite to claim that there was not an enormous saving, of many hundreds of millions of £s, on our programme as against the one which we inherited.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: A factual point: does my right hon. Friend assume £150 million for research and development on the part of the French? We are going 50–50 now, are we not?

Mr. Healey: For heaven's sake—with respect, I do not include in the British programme costs, costs which the French Government or any other Government will carry.

Mr. Dalyell: They carry £150 million, too, do they?

Mr. Healey: I am assuming that there is an equal share——

Mr. Dalyell: Three hundred million?

Mr. Healey: Yes, but I do not believe that it is likely to be anything near as high as that. The figures to which I have given support in the House are something like £100 million to £125 million as the estimated programme costs. I am not prepared to assert this at the moment, but I think that those figures are more in the

range of tolerance. However, as I say, looking this far ahead, one inevitably runs into uncertainties on either side of the programme, which can throw the figures out to some extent, though only marginally.

Mr. Hastings: The right hon. Gentleman made quite a point of escalation in research and development costs for the TSR2 and, of course, they did escalate, but, to put the matter in proportion, will he not agree—this is certainly my impression—that the Armed Services Committee of the Congress believed that the escalation for the F111, on a comparable basis, was of the order of 50 per cent.?

Mr. Healey: I do not know what they think, but, if we take 50 per cent. for the estimated difference, we do not contribute towards that because we have a ceiling price on the basic aircraft, and that compares with an escalation of over 500 per cent. on the TSR2. With respect, the hon. Gentleman, who has made such a point of championing the TSR2, can take no comfort from that comparison. I only wish that the TSR2 programme had been subject to the same sort of cost control as the F111 in the United States.
I shall leave my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Technology, to deal with questions on the offset, which, I think, the right hon. Gentleman did not raise but on which questions may be raised later in the debate. He will deal also with questions which may arise on the impact of the programme on the aircraft industry. I now summarise what I have said so far by saying that we have been guided by three main considerations: first, to provide the Royal Air Force with the aircraft it needs to deter aggression and to keep the peace; second, to maintain the necessary level of technological expertise in the aircraft industry—my hon. Friend will deal with that when he winds up; third, and critically important, to keep the taxpayer's insurance premium to a minimum.
The present aircraft programme meets all these three requirements. The TSR2 would have been a fine aircraft. We have never denied that cost was the problem there. But the F111 is its equal: militarily there was little to choose between them. The TSR2 priced itself out of existence. This is not surprising. It is a fact of economic life which we have to face that no country of the size of ours


can build aircraft of this complexity unless assured of a large market. The review of the place of the aircraft industry in the economy, which we undertook when we came into office, was long overdue. The Plowden Report has now confirmed that future requirements for large and complex weapons systems should be developed collaboratively, built under licence, or bought from the United States. Our country simply cannot afford a purely domestic venture like the TSR2.
This is a difficult fact to face, but face it we must. This Government at least has had the courage to face it when there was still time to save the taxpayer hundreds of millions of £s which otherwise might have gone down the drain. Since we had to replace the Canberra by 1970, there would be no time then to collaborate with anyone. It was fortunate for us that the Americans had under development the F111 designed to a requirement almost identical with that for the Canberra replacement. The purchase of the aircraft met the short-term aim of replacing the Canberras by 1970, at considerable saving to the taxpayer. I believe that the balance of all the military, industrial and financial arguments is firmly on the side of the programme which we have laid down.
I make this point to some hon. Members opposite. I know, personally, that the Royal Air Force, at the highest levels, has every confidence in the F111. They know it well. They have flown it. It is indisputably the finest strike aircraft in the world. Its quality will be seen when it enters R.A.F. service. Meanwhile, let me make one more point, and that strongly.
Ill-informed criticism of this aircraft, criticism which often originates in the vested interest of people with commercial considerations at heart, serves no one's interests but our enemies'. Worse, it erodes the confidence and morale of the young airmen who will be called upon to fly it. They will be operating a revolutionary machine performing on the frontiers of aerodynamic knowledge. They will be entrusted with very expensive apparatus, shouldering great responsibilities. Their morale is at stake.
We, too, have responsibilities, to see that the aircrew are backed by our own confidence and by our best efforts for their

safety and success. To attempt to score political points by inaccurate or malicious comments on a fine aircraft harms more than the reputation of the hon. Member who attempts it; it is a blow against the Royal Air Force, our defence interests, and ourselves.
I have covered most of the points of substance raised by the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend will deal with the rest in winding up. In so far as it is possible to distinguish the shape of the wood among all the trees, the right hon. Gentleman's main argument against the Government seemed to be that we were not providing enough information on the costs and performance of the aircraft, and, second, that in buying the aircraft we were imposing an unjustified financial load on the taxpayer.
Both points are without substance, as I have tried to show. I have given a great mass of detailed information on the cost and specification of the F111K, as I have sought to do on all major items of equipment for all three Services since I have been in my present office. Evidently, the appetite grows on what it feeds on, and hon. Members would like more. Whenever I feel I can give more information without damaging our security, I shall do so, but I confess to a feeling of disappointment that, so often, the availability of much more information on these matters encourages some hon. Members to concentrate far too much on minor questions of detail at the expense of the major issues of defence and foreign policy on which I believe it is the duty of the House to comment.
But for a front bench Member of the party opposite to criticise me for not giving more information requires a truly staggering effrontery. Let us take their own behaviour on the TSR2 and compare it with what the Comptroller and Auditor General was able to unearth in his Report on the Civil Appropriation Accounts for 1964–65. Here are some examples.
The 1960 Statement on Defence states that,
considerable progress has been made with the detailed design of the TSR2 aircraft for the strike and reconnaissance rôle.
That is all. It does not say that the estimated development cost was £80 million to £90 million covering work up


to full release in all rôles in 1966. I am not surprised that some hon. Members feel it healthier to leave the Chamber at this point. Neither does it say that the Ministry of Aviation had warned the Treasury that it would be prudent to assume that the estimated cost would rise when more detailed estimates became available. We had to wait five years for this information, and it was produced not by the party opposite, but by the Comptroller and Auditor-General.
The 1961 Defence White Paper was silent on the subject. The 1962 Report on Defence said:
the TSR2, which is planned to come into service in the mid-sixties, will make an important contribution in this rôle.
—that is, strike and recce. One notices that, this time, there is uncertainty about the date compared with the earlier reference to 1966, and that was just as well since, within a month or so of publication, the cost of development was up to £137 million, and full release had gone back to the latter part of 1967. We did not learn that from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. We learnt it three years later from the Comptroller and Auditor General.
The 1963 White Paper said nothing about the TSR2 or anything else—it was only 18 lines in all. But paragraph 12 of the R.A.F. memorandum has brave words about the potentialities and the importance of the aircraft. Let us compare these with the Comptroller and Auditor General's Report. By now the Finance and Contracts Monitoring Committee
… appeared to have been unable to anticipate or give warning of any of the successive major increases in the contractor's estimated costs.
Yet in January, 1963 the estimate of development costs was up to £175-£200 million, with full release at the end of 1968. But we still had to wait two years to get that information from the Comptroller and Auditor General.
The 1964 White Paper, the last the party opposite produced, again had some brave words. It said in paragraph 165:
The most notable example of such progress"—
in technology—
is the TSR2—which will make its first flight shortly. This aircraft promises to be one of

the most potent and flexible instruments of military power yet devised …".
A month before this the development cost had gone up to £240–£260 million, the higher figure allowing for a further possible 12 to 18 months' delay on the completion of the programme. The year 1966 had become virtually 1970 but there was not a word of that to the House or country from the party opposite when in power.
For the representatives of a party with the TSR2 in its record to accuse the present Government of inadequate care for the taxpayers' money and for the rights of Parliament takes some nerve. When I look at the right hon. Gentleman's record of consistent miscalculation in hospital programmes when he was Minister of Health, I wonder that he has the gall to face the House as he did this afternoon. Of course, the cost of the F111K is high, but, as I have shown, over the next 15 years our programme for tactical strike and reconnaissance will cost £700 million less than that of the party opposite. This is only one example of our concern with cost compared with the profligate extravagance of the party opposite.
As I showed in the defence debate, in our first three years of office we have cut £750 million off the firm programme of the previous Administration, a programme which was costed in detail by Mr. Thorneycroft, and whose costs were checked and accepted by the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) while he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. But if we were to follow the advice of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West—he is, after all, the official defence spokesman of the Opposition—even the extravagance of the previous Administration would pale into insignificance by comparison. On top of opposing every single cut we have made in his party's defence programme, he has told us we must have an Army in being equal in armament, training and philosophy to any other in Europe, and capable of fighting a prolonged conventional war on the continent. Even assuming the other allies played their part—and there is no reason for assuming that—this would mean Britain having to produce well over the four divisions of some 77,000 men promised to N.A.T.O. by the Conservative Government in 1954.


It would mean a return to conscription and an increase in the defence budget of at least £30 million a year.
I see that the right hon. Gentleman has now come out in the Sunday Times in favour of pitting ourselves against the whole of the Soviet fleet in a new Battle of the Atlantic. If we took seriously the views he expressed in the Sunday Times only a week ago, we should have to build perhaps another 30 nuclear attack submarines at a cost of close on £1,000 million, not to speak of expanding enormously our fleet of surface submarine hunters to meet the vast Russian fleet of conventional submarines.
If there is any consistent thinking behind these statements, the only possible criticism of the F111K purchase which hon. Members opposite could make, is that we should be buying three or four times as many. This would complete their picture of the future Britain: a nation in arms—bust to the wide. I ask the House to reject their Motion.

5.24 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: I do not want to delay the House long, but I should like just to remark on a few points made by the Secretary of State for Defence in the more reasonable part of his speech, before it turned into an acid and vituperative attack on right hon. Members on this side of the House.
It is unfortunate that, having spent so much good time converting those behind him to the need for a tactical strike reconnaissance rôle and heavy expenditure on aircraft, he should have turned on my right hon. Friends in the last moments of his speech. If the Government are determined to buy the F111 now, everyone on both sides of the House wishes to see that aircraft a success. That is not in question. What is in question is some of the things the right hon. Gentleman said this afternoon in the general policy which he laid out.
Everyone who has studied these matters is agreed on the need for a strike reconnaissance aircraft. But there are enormous weaknesses in the right hon. Gentleman's programme between now and 1970–80 which are for the consideration of the House. He said that instead of the TSR2 programme, whether it be of 110 or 158 aircraft, we should now have

50 F111s, plus the vulcan force—what remains of it—plus the AFVG, and that this would give us a tactical strike reconnaissance force suitable to deal with all the Government's various commitments overseas.
I have only two points to make immediately, and I hope that they will be answered by the hon. Gentleman when he replies to the debate. First, there was no mention in the right hon. Gentleman's speech of the Canberra replacement in Europe, which is essential to the support of B.A.O.R., with a tactical nuclear weapon. He talked about the certainty of the AFVG, but over the past few years I have constantly intervened in defence or aircraft debates on that subject and it is clear that the British and French Air Staffs are diametrically opposed. The French want a fighter-interceptor and we want a strike reconnaissance plane continuation of the TSR2 rôle—I hope that the hon. Gentleman will listen to me for a moment. He must know his right hon. Friend's views very well.
It is absolutely essential to state that difference, for otherwise the figures of £700 million between the two programmes are based on non-existent "facts" and aircraft which at the moment are unlikely to fly. That is the main confusion, and the Minister knows it full well. The AFVG is a paper aeroplane.
My other point concerns the costs, whether one takes those for 1965–80, 1965–75, 1968–78. The Minister suggested that the late Government were entered on a commitment beyond reason and absolutely without limit. I believe that that is wrong and a false presentation of the case. I think that the figures which he inherited were for 110 TSR2s, which had been supported by the Cabinet. As the last Secretary of State for Air, I supported a rather higher figure. If he looks at the costs worked out, whether those before the Public Accounts Committee or inside his own Department, he will see that the claims he has made that this Government would save about £1,200 million in aircraft procurement for this country are false and need to be most carefully studied.
The other and much more important point is for this House and the country to review what advantage will be given by the sort of programme the right hon.


Gentleman is pursuing. I find myself in accord with him on the question of the aircraft carrier. I believe that he has taken a bold and right decision. I know that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends do not agree with me on this. I fought that battle in my own way in my own day. But that decision having been taken, it surely stands to reason that the country must have the right type of aircraft and in sufficient numbers, and the trouble we find today is that the commitments we have overseas—they have in no way diminished—must stand more and more upon the ability of the R.A.F. to support them.
Whatever the right hon. Gentleman may have done in saving money—and many of these figures are questionable—what we are left with is an Air Force with insufficient numbers in strike and reconnaissance aircraft, with paper aircraft which we are not clear will ever fly, a Phantom aircraft which will only take off from very long runways and in close support is not as good as it should be, and a vertical take off aircraft which, remarkable though it may be, will not have sufficient armament to fly on its own.
This is the heritage that the right hon. Gentleman has given to the defence of Britain. He has done many good things. He is a bold man. But to suggest to the country that 50 F111Ks plus the Vulcan bombers, which are going out anyway, plus an aircraft not yet agreed to by the Chiefs of Staff here or in France, are enough is not justified by our defence needs.

5.32 p.m.

Mr. E. S. Bishop: It is a pleasure to address the House again after an enforced silence on the Front Bench. One of the reasons that I returned to the back benches was that I would be able to answer some of the things that I had to tolerate in silence from the Opposition. I suspect that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) was more anxious to condemn our decision to get rid of the TSR2 than he was to get elucidation of the F111K situation. We are grateful to him at least for initiating the debate because it has enabled my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary to give an explanation of many conflicting statements made by the Opposition and the Press.
We would all pay tribute to my right hon. Friend on two scores. The first is the way in which he has tried to relate our commitments and defence policy to the economic situation. The second is the detailed way in which he has answered questions today. I last addressed the House in a major debate on 13th December, 1965. It was on the subject of the F111K and I asked a number of questions. The first was whether the Government needed an aircraft to replace the TSR2.
When one discusses defence projects and rôles, strategy and needs, one has to have some idea of what the commitments are in various parts of the world and one is conscious of the fact that the Opposition were responsible in Government for piling up the commitments and liabilities which the present Government are desperately trying to curtail. In the light of the defence needs of the time and of the period ahead—possibly eight to ten years—my right hon. Friend has shouldered a very great task.
As I have said, I asked in that debate whether it was necessary to replace the TSR2 at all. I asked whether it was not possible to offset some of the rôles and responsibilities for which it was intended and whether the operational requirements were not excessive for the needs of the time. I asked whether the F111K was not too sophisticated and whether the Buccaneer or the Spey/ Mirage would not be able to fulfil the job.
Like many of my hon. Friends, I deplored the situation in which the Government felt obliged to buy American aircraft. I regretted having to spend dollars on them. I thought that we should do our utmost to offset the dollar cost by insisting that the United States purchased some of our products in order to bring about a balance of cost. The Government, then and now, have been faced with the position in which there are many pressing requirements at home in a difficult economic situation. We need to curtail our liabilities and relate them to our economic ability to pay for the things we need. All these points were relevant in 1965 and are relevant today.
Most of us deplored the need to buy American aircraft because this was also an advertisement for American goods as against our own and could have done


great harm, even with the substantial offsets which have been brought about. But, having said that, I must say that it is gross impertinence of the Opposition to deplore our decision to buy American aircraft—which is what they are really doing—when it was they who, when in office, committed us to this great liability. Furthermore, one must compare their ordering of the Phantom, the CI30 and other aircraft, which started us on the slippery slope.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: How does the hon. Gentleman allege that we ordered the C130? That was one of the earlier follies of the present Government.

Mr. Bishop: The Conservative Government, either by ordering American aircraft direct or by leaving behind deficiencies in the British aircraft programme, made it essential for the Government who were to succeed—I use that word in the two ways—to order American aircraft. The fact is that the Conservative Government, in office for 13 years, should have reviewed the position long before. I remind the Opposition that their stewardship led Sir Roy Dobson, Chairman of Hawker Siddleley, to say:
the Conservatives just wouldn't make up their minds about anything; they just waffled.
That is still the situation with the party opposite. They can present no genuine alternative to the Government's policy. It is inconsistent for any party responsible for the cancellation of at least 26 aircraft projects while they were in power, at a cost of at least £300 million, to attempt a minor censure of the present Government's policy. We know the immense problems before my right hon. Friend. He has to estimate our defence rôle and decide the strategy. He must decide on what is needed to fulfil that rôle and anticipate our needs eight or ten years ahead. He must decide on the specifications—whether short range, long range or medium range, high level or low level, subsonic or supersonic—and all these other technical aspects so as to ensure, that, when the time should come, the aircraft are ready for their rôle. The weapons we need and the strategy we employ are of great importance to our country. We shall need advanced aircraft.
When the decision had to be taken on the TSR2, the Government knew very well that the aircraft would have been ready too late and at too great a cost. For good or ill the choice had to fall on the FIIIK on the ground that it would be ready much more quickly and at a considerably lower cost. The figures given by my right hon. Friend today fully confirm that point of view and the forecast made at the time.
At the time, some of my hon. Friends and I suggested that the Government should give serious consideration to the alternatives of the Buccaneer and the Spey/Mirage. It was suggested that the Spey engine could be put into the Mirage. All these matters of "know-how" and experience are important if we are to make the right decision in the long run. We realised, of course, that we could not just take an engine from the Mirage and hope to produce what we wanted in a very short time. It is very important to bear in mind when discussing and assessing aircraft needs that an aircraft designed for one rôle cannot be adapted to fulfil the needs of another rôle in a short time and at no great cost. With the Spey/Mirage, engines would have had to be fitted and the centre of gravity would have been affected as would the centre sections, the nacelles and the aerodynamic features and much else. In the circumstances, deplorable though it was, we were forced to buy American aircraft, and the Government did the only thing possible to guarantee that the operational requirements would be met in the early 1970s.
In deciding on the replacement for the Canberra, the Government had to consider three major factors. There was, first, the Royal Air Force, and I am sure that we all agree that the R.A.F. ought to have the best possible aircraft and weapons at the lowest possible cost to carry out its rôle. Secondly, it is important in future as in the past for the Government at all times to consider the effect of their policies on the British aircraft industry. Those are two basic considerations in matters of this sort. Thirdly, at the same time as we were condemned by the Opposition for cancelling one or two other British projects, we all know that had those projects continued, the sought-after Anglo-French collaboration which is


now a reality would not have been possible. The curtailment of the TSR2 programme has resulted, as my right hon. Friend has said, in substantial savings and in ensuring that we get the specification needed and that it is available at the right time.
My right hon. Friend made one or two points which are most important to total costs. The defence correspondent of The Times recently made a useful comment when he said on operating costs that, given the figures for the F111 and the AFVG, the cost of the basic aircraft was about half the cost of keeping it operational for ten years. I am pleased to note that the Government are at last doing something which was not done by their predecessors and which is to pay increasing attention to the reliability and maintenance of the aircraft which they order.
One of the examples is that to change (he engines of the TSR2 would have taken twelve times as long as to change the engines of the F111.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is it not one of the most depressing features of the F111 that the engines will need to be changed consistently? Is it not a thoroughly unreliable engine which has not yet been put into a condition which makes the aircraft safe to fly?

Mr. Bishop: The fact that it can be changed much more easily is an added attraction. The hon. Member is falling for the view—if that is so, and I do not suggest that it is—that by the time we get this aircraft, some of the development and research snags will not have been ironed out. Basically, the F1 aircraft will be much more easily kept operational than would have been the TSR2, and that is most important.
The Motion, which appears to be concerned about the Government's alleged inconsistency, is an impertinence. What is more inconsistent than that, having been in power for 13 years, the Conservative Party should have ordered no fewer than 26 aircraft which were later cancelled? What about the inconsistency of the Conservatives in committing us to great expenditure, with commitments running to hundreds of millions of £s a year, at a time when they realised that, because of the economic consequences, the country could not afford to pay for all that? The

only consistency of the Opposition in this matter has been their own inconsistency.

5.44 p.m.

Mr. Victor Goodhew: I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop) discussing the possibility of the TSR2 being too late as well as too expensive when the Prime Minister made it clear that this was not so. The Prime Minister said:
… the situation which we inherited last October was that the supersonic bomber which they finally put into the programme—the TSR2—could, at the earliest, not be in service until 1968".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 1965; Vol. 707, c. 1557.]
If that was the Prime Minister's estimate, it was no doubt intended to be pessimistic, but that would still be a year earlier than we can possibly have the F111. The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong.
The Secretary of State's cynicism knows no bounds in that he has lectured us about upholding the morale of young airmen when he is the man who has put the future of the whole R.A.F. in jeopardy, when it was he who cancelled the TSR2 and then the HS681 and then the P1154, and then left long gaps before making any decision about their replacement. It is hard to imagine anything more cynical than that. During the course of his speech he made some remarks about the purchase of the F111 preserving and strengthening the British aircraft industry. How the right hon. Gentleman can cancel the TSR2 and the other two projects which I have mentioned and then talk of strengthening the aircraft industry by buying American equipment is beyond my comprehension.
The purchase of the F111 was first mooted in a most unorthodox manner. It was mooted first in the course of a Budget statement and not in a defence debate. This surely should have been a warning to all concerned with the defence of the country's security and interests. The purchase of the F111 did not stem from a decision by the Chief of Air Staff, or by the Secretary of State for Defence, or by the Minister of Aviation of the time, but from a decision of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to persuade the Cabinet to cancel and destroy the TSR2 for purely political reasons. This is where it all started. The Chancellor wanted to show what was alleged to be a saving in defence expenditure, an


immediate saving, and he did it without thought to the final cost of any replacement and without thought of the devastating implications for the effectiveness of the Royal Air Force. If the Secretary of State had listened to his Service advisers of that time and if he had had the moral courage, he would have resigned in the face of such an irresponsible and catastrophic decision.
The TSR2 was designed to meet the R.A.F.'s requirements. It had been proved in the course of development and it had not merely come up to, but had exceeded expectations. It was flying and it had cleared all the major hurdles in its development programme with unprecedented ease. The R.A.F. was convinced of its supremacy as an advanced tactical/strike and reconnaissance aircraft. A major part of the research and development expenditure had been met and there was no reason to suppose that the aircraft would not be in squadron service on time.
The Secretary of State, the man whose prime duty is to see that the Services are equipped with weapons which will enable them to carry out the various tasks allotted to them, stood idly by while the TSR2 was not just cancelled but destroyed, and himself announced the option for the purchase of the F111 A. What a miserable and disgraceful history! It is no wonder that the right hon. Gentleman now finds it necessary to go travelling round the world trying in vain to convince the Services and our Allies that they should have confidence in him.
I was interested to read an article in the Daily Telegraph today by Air Commodore Donaldson in which he said:
To most of the officers I have spoken to recently it seems that although there is great talk of a mammoth re-equipment programme the R.A.F's strength is in fact being whittled down month by month by the Labour Government without regard to the country's global commitments, or the part the R.A.F. is expected to play in safeguarding British interests abroad".
I do not suppose that any hon. Member who has visited R.A.F. stations at home or abroad would dissent from that point of view. This is the experience of hon. Members on this side of the House and I have no doubt that the same things

would be said to hon. Members opposite if they called on the R.A.F.

Mr. Lubbock: It has not been said to me.

Mr. Goodhew: The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) dissents. He thinks that the R.A.F. are very happy with everything. I shall be very glad to learn from him in due course what they are so happy about.
Even in his announcement about the F111A option—made, incidentally, in a Budget debate on 6th April, 1965—the Minister of Defence used language which was calculated to mislead the House and the country. As reported in column 331, he said,
The nature of the option on the F-111A is such that Her Majesty's Government have until the end of this year to decide whether to take it up. Any initial order would be a very small number for training purposes. It would not be necessary for Her Majesty's Government to place a follow-up order until as late as April, 1967."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 6th April, 1965; Vol. 710, c. 331.]
Hon. Members should note that phrase—only a very small number required for training purposes initially. Should the House consider this so small, ten aircraft at £25 million? Having purchased those ten aircraft for at least £25 million, would it then have been possible not to place a follow-up order? Would there have been any point in buying ten aircraft for training purposes if we did not intend later to order more? All this is the type of verbiage used by the Secretary of State for Defence over and over again carefully calculated to mislead the House and to conceal the size of the likely commitment.
This cunning concealment of the extent of the commitment has continued ever since the first announcement in April, 1965. Statements were made to the effect that the maximum price had been agreed when in fact it had not been agreed. We now know that in fact this is not a ceiling price because it has to take account of American escalation. We had a categorical statement that the order for the 40 F-111K's would not be placed until the supplemental maximum price had been agreed. We now know not only that this would not have been a true maximum supplemental price but also that the aircraft have been ordered without any such agreement.
Furthermore, the Minister has constantly compared the cost of the F-111 programme with the cost of the TSR2 programme. He excelled himself today. He introduced so much. He introduced the Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft and insisted that the figures which he gave included the planned buy of Anglo-French V.G. aircraft. But when I inquired a week or so ago how many we planned to buy, he asked how he could possibly answer that when he did not know what the aeroplane would be and how much it would cost. Yet today he told us that this aircraft is included in some of the figures which he gave. He talked about V-bombers, Buccaneers and all sorts of things which we have not normally considered to be part of this alternative purchase, which is what we are trying to get at. It was clear that he believes that if he gets enough balls into the air, juggling happily, no one will see what he is up to. I am certain that the figures which he has given today, the global sums, all along the line were not calculated to enable us to see what was behind it all but were calculated to mislead us, just as we have been mislead by practically everything else which has been said about this programme in the past.
We shall not know for a long time what is the cost of this change from the TSR2 to the alternative, but no doubt in time we shall learn, and I suspect that we shall find that it was a very extravagant change. We do not even know whether we are to have the Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft. We do not even know what its specifications will be if we have it, and we do not even know what its cost is likely to be. How on earth the right hon. Gentleman can seriously suggest that the figures given as global sums by him can mean anything, I do not know.
He has persistently and deliberately sought to mislead the House and the country on the whole question of costs, and I am sure that he has done so because even he is beginning to realise just what he has done. He is beginning to realise that the Government have made a most catastrophic error in cancelling the TSR2 and having it destroyed, together with the jigs and tools, so that he has placed himself in a position in which no business man would ever place himself—that of having to accept what the Americans offer him. He is now

terrified of the financial implications as well as of the operational implications.
What are the operational implications of this change? Here, again, the Minister has done his best to conceal the facts. On 13th December, 1965, as reported in c. 915 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, he said,
This does not involve any substantial down-grading of the TSR2's performance, though I must make it clear that in many respects the F111A is superior to the TSR2, particularly in radius of action and flexibility."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th December 1965; Vol. 722, c. 915.]
Why did he not tell us how insubstantial was the down grading of the TSR2 performance? Why did he not tell us in which field the F111 is inferior to the TSR2? He has not told us even today. On 16th November, 1966, as reported in c. 423 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, he said,
In all respects the performance of the F111K is superior to the requirement for the TSR2."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November 1966; Vol. 735, c. 423.]
This, again, is juggling with words—to compare performance with requirements. He should have been comparing the performance of the F111 with the performance or likely performance of the TSR2. When I tackled him on this point today, he brushed it aside by saying that he could not tell us what the performance of the TSR2 would have been. But he could have told us what it had already achieved in a very successful development and what it could possibly have reached or should have reached in the full time of its development.
This can mean only one thing—that in practice the performance of the TSR2 was superior to the requirements. If this had not been so, the Minister would have told us that the performance of the F111 was superior to the performance of the TSR2. In fact he was careful not to say that. I suspect that it means that the F111 is in fact inferior to the TSR2 in performance, even if there is not a substantial difference. What a juggling of words to conceal the facts.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) pointed out, we had a higher standard of honesty from the other place when we were told by the Minister without Portfolio on 6th April that
we have had definite assurances"—


for whatever these may be worth—
that the aircraft will meet the R.A.F.'s minimum requirements".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 6th April, 1967; Vol. 281, c. 1072.]
This can mean only that there has been a downgrading and that the R.A.F. are being passed off with second-best. I suspect that, having been duped into accepting the cancellation of the TSR2 in the belief that they were to get 110 F111s—that was the basis on which the R.A.F. said goodbye to the TSR2—the R.A.F. now have to accept 50 F111s in the expectation that these will be supplemented by 150 of the Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft, which will bring the bomb load up to about the same. The R.A.F. now find themselves clinging in desperation to the 50 F111s which they hope to get, for if that goes by the board, there is no Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft in existence.
It seems to me that at the moment they are bound to say that it is a splendid aircraft. It is inevitable that the Minister will come to the House and say that senior R.A.F. officers have flown it and think it superb. If I were in the R.A.F., having had the TSR2 taken away and knowing how badly I needed some aircraft to carry out my task, I would grab at anything which was going. It is astonishing that while this is said in the House about that aircraft, the Americans, who are producing it for their own Air Force, do not appear to agree that it is as well nigh perfect as it is supposed to be.
There is also the important point that the Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft is not yet an aircraft on paper let alone in metal, and yet the Government talk about this aeroplane and even advertise it in the newspapers as an attraction for young men wishing to enter the R.A.F. as if it were an aircraft that they were bound to be able to fly in the 'seventies.

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: Disgraceful.

Mr. Goodhew: There is no guarantee that it will ever be built. It seems to me, therefore, that it is no wonder that there should be such concern in the Royal Air Force. The Minister—[Interruption.]—I do not know whether the hon. Member

for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) wishes to intervene.

Mr. Roy Roebuck: I was remarking—I hoped that it could not be heard—that the hon. Gentleman had got so used to his own side cancelling aircraft that he expected any aircraft to be cancelled whatever it was.

Mr. Goodhew: I do not think that that contributes much to the debate. I am sorry that I even bothered to disturb the hon. Member from his very reclining position.
When I referred to the feelings of the Royal Air Force during the debate on the Air Estimates the Minister scoffed at me and giggled and guffawed, which seems to be his normal method of overcoming or trying to conceal his anxiety and discomfort and avoid admitting the position. I believe that the Minister, for all his long performance today, for all the facts and figures—which I think were put out not to clarify the position but to make it even more difficult to determine it—has failed the Services that he supports, and the sooner he resigns the better.

6.1 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Edelman: I was sorry that the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence in such an intemperate and unconstructive way. What should be common ground on both sides in this debate is that we all want to see the Royal Air Force equipped with the very best aircraft and the British aircraft industry flourishing to the extent that it can.
Having said that about the hon. Gentleman, I must say that I was sorry when my right hon. Friend, at the end of his extremely interesting speech, referred to the critics of the F111—to some critics at any rate—as being actuated by malice or commercial interest. I say straight away that my only interest in the matter is the defence of the country and the concerns of my own constituents who are to some extent involved in the matter. I hope, therefore, that in the criticisms I propose to offer my right hon. Friend will not find any occasion for assuming that I am motivated by malice, of which I have none, or by any other interest than those that I have mentioned.
It is obvious that the debate is haunted by the ghost of the TSR2, an aircraft which was buried but which is certainly not dead. It was ploughed into the ground, its jigs and tools were smashed, the prototypes were pulverised—all, I assume, in the interests of security, in order to avoid any possible enemy from getting access to the basic materials and prototypes of the aircraft.

Mr. Burden: The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting point. If it was necessary to carry out such destruction of everything connected with the TSR2 because of the danger of its getting into other hands, does it not imply that it was really a wonderful aircraft?

Mr. Edelman: I assume that the intention of smashing up the aircraft and all that surrounded it was in the interests of security. I think there is little doubt about the quality of the aircraft, but I shall refer to that in a moment if the hon. Gentleman will be patient.
In the context of that time, not only was the aircraft broken but the present Home Secretary, who was then the Minister of Aviation, scared the wits out of the country by saying that the cost would be £10 million per aircraft. In reply to that I would say—my right hon. Friend used the same sort of argument today—that if it cost £2,000 to develop a watch the first watch off the production line costs £2,000.
I feel that in the case of the TSR2 what should have been looked into was the reason for the escalation of the development costs in the first instance. I speak with some hind-sight, of course, because I have in mind the rising costs which were shown in the course of the Ferrantiscandal and the Bristol-Siddeley affair. That illustrates—I say it without any partisan spirit—that what should have been looked into at the time was not simply the project as a whole, but the reason for the escalation of costs in development and ultimately as it proceeded towards production.
Attention was drawn in the first instance, I believe, to the dramatic rise in costs—which was referred to by my right hon. Friend, and which hon. Gentlemen opposite will certainly not dispute—by the Estimates Committee. What is certain is that, in my judgment, there was no

real basis for such extraordinary escalation of development costs. The criticism which it will be within the memory of some hon. Gentlemen that I offered towards the Minister of Aviation in 1964–65 was precisely that, instead of slashing the project, he should have slashed the costs. He should have gone into the factories and seen exactly why the aircraft costs were rising. Like other hon. Members on these benches, I saw the prototype in production. It was a prototype that was literally being made by hand. The best that one could have hoped would have been that it would have been a protoype manufactured by batch production.
I am sure that any hon. Gentleman who has had any direct concern with the aircraft industry—I have had such—will question very seriously why the costs of the TSR2 rose to the phenomenal height to which they did. The Minister of Aviation in 1964 and 1965 sheltered, I believe, behind the Plowden Committee when he was asked to investigate the reason for the extraordinary rise in costs. The Plowden Committee was a farcical body which never even visited the factories on which it had to report. There was never any physical inspection by any member of the Plowden Committee, unless one excepts the factories of Shorts in Northern Ireland. So although it had eventually to report on the efficiency of the aircraft industry, it did not have the opportunity, the occasion or the experience of seeing how aircraft are manufactured. But even on the basis——

Mr. Hastings: It is an interesting point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but is he aware that the Committee visited several American aircraft factories?

Mr. Edelman: I think that that is a tribute to its enterprise, though not to its wisdom, in this matter. It was clearly in the Committee's terms of reference to examine the British aircraft industry, and that is where it should have begun.
I am convinced that had the matter been taken in hand under the direction of the Minister of Aviation at the time ways and means could have been found of producing the TSR2 much more efficiently and much more cheaply.
The conclusion to which the Plowden Committee came, that the British aircraft industry was less efficient—I use the


word in its technical sense—than the American or the French aircraft industry is a pointer to what could have been achieved if there had been an investigation of the rising costs of the TSR2.
I would say in parenthesis, in case the term "efficient" is misinterpreted, that I have always believed that in terms of quality, experience and skill and ability the technicians and workers in our industry are the equals at least of any in the world. I say this not to flatter my constituents; I believe it to be true, and our tradition and experience have proved it to be so.
The position is that today we are dependent—how dependent I shall try to indicate in a few moments—on an American aircraft which is expensive in its dollar costs, which is unproven and which is still being questioned by a United States Congressional Committee—and that is sustained not only by politicians but by expert aviation opinion as well.
So we have lost, in effect, that which we might have obtained in our own factories from the technological studies of the potentialities of TSR2. We have thrown this away and we are now obliged to expend dollars. At the moment we have long-term credit from the United States, but settling day will have to come. We have to pay those dollars, and we have forfeited the opportunity of having an aircraft built with the self-reliance and skill of our own technicians.
I have referred to the United States Congressional Committee. Perhaps I may quote Senator McClellan, Chairman of the Committee, who described the F111 as a political aircraft. It is perfectly true that in the United States there are many commercial interests which are attacking the aircraft, no doubt with the disgruntlement of disappointed competitors. I have no doubt that this is an element which has entered into the debate. Nevertheless, the fact is that those who have promoted the F111 in the United States have been members of the lobby which was promoting, and still is promoting, the sale of the F111 in Great Britain. If one wanted to look for an aircraft lobby one would not have to look very far. One need only look

to those permanent representatives of the United States aircraft lobby who are in this country and who have been plugging the sale of the F111.
When the decision was taken to buy the initial 10, with the option for a further 40, we all ought to bear in mind that the whole question of the F111 was a matter of bitter debate between Mr. McNamara, the United States Secretary of State for Defence, and the McClellan Committee. The criticism was directed to the merits, and the particulars and performance of the aircraft. I must confess that I find it rather curious that when my right hon. Friend has to answer criticism of the aircraft his ultimate source of authority to which he refers is always the United States Secretary of Defence. It is precisely because of this that the debate is going on. Criticisms have been made in open sessions and they were summed up recently by the extremely well informed correspondent of the Economist, who said of the F111:
Its weakness throughout has lain in the engines which stalled, or simply blew out like candles, with embarrassing and unexpected regularity.
I hasten to say that I quote this, not as my right hon. Friend suggested, in order to cause alarm and despondency among those who have to fly the aircraft. I would have thought that it is much better to offer such criticism before they fly them, rather than to allow them to fly the aircraft, only to find that their engines have stalled, with embarrassing and unexpected regularity.
As my right hon. Friend is very properly concerned with the saving of lives, he will surely welcome these criticisms, which are designed for the protection of those who may have to fly the aircraft. The original engine installed in the F111 has been described as one of the worst, if not the worst, that Pratt and Witney have ever built. That is the aircraft and the engine for which the former Minister of Aviation and the present Minister of Defence discarded the TSR2. That is the measure of the error that we have made. It is proper to recognise the nature of the error and to see what lessons can be drawn from it.
On 12th April, I asked the Minister of Defence whether he would have done better, before taking up the option for


the further 40 aircraft to have awaited the outcome of the McClellan Committee. My right hon. Friend replied:
No. Sir … The main subject of criticism of the McClellan, inquiry is the suitability of the F111B, which we are not buying, for the U.S. Navy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th April, 1967; Vol. 744, c. 1181.]
On the very next day. Senator McClellan said in the Senate:
It is difficult to understand how the Defence Department could justify the production, for combat use, of a plane which is still unacceptable.
He was talking of the Air Force version of the F111, which Britain is buying. Therefore I repeat that the whole question of the aircraft is still in doubt, still under inquiry in the United States. Yet my right hon. Friend has persevered with the purchase of these very dubious aircraft.
I can only assume that my right hon. Friend has not read the massive, highly publicised reports of the United States Committee. I have read it in some detail, and I can assure him that the criticisms of the Committee have not been directed simply towards the naval version, which it has been established already is above weight. It weighs far too much for its intended purpose. The whole tenor of those criticisms has been directed to the aircraft and its performance as such. It is important to state that before some sort of myth is established that the only criticism of the Congressional Committee has been directed towards the naval version. That is not so. Criticism has been directed towards the basic aircraft, which we are proposing to buy.
My right hon. Friend is in a series of dilemmas. If the Government needs their east of Suez commitments they will obviously need strike reconnaissance aircraft. That is the assumption, I imagine, on which this debate is taking place. The 50 F111s. will make four squadrons, plus an operational conversion unit, and it is assumed that two of these squadrons would be stationed east of Suez. But if these aircraft fall short in their range and speed, will they be any more than expensive showpieces? My right hon. Friend was talking in somewhat confusing terms about the quality of the performance. One thing is quite obvious, that when he talks about the potential range of the aircraft, it has to be related in some way to the load which it will carry. It is an absurdity for anyone to

talk about range without any relevance to the load carried. Therefore, these comparisons, interesting though they may sound, are capable, at any rate, of masking the real truth of the matter.
It seems certain that the F111 will fall short of the original requirements and specifications. My right hon. Friend has indicated that the plane will exceed the R.A.F.'s minimum requirements. That word "minimum" is very interesting. It reminds me of the old farmer who during discussion on the payment of minimum wages to farm labourers was asked if he paid the minimum. He replied, "I always pay it." It seems that the word "minimum" is a word begging description. We have to assure ourselves that the performance of the aircraft will have some correlation with the original specifications.
I want to deal with a most important point. We have looked back at the TSR2, but I want to look forward to the AFVG, because unless we clear our minds of the situation about this we shall not be able to see that my right hon. Friend is potentially hooked on the F111, and the 50 that have been bought will not be the end of the story.
I assure the House that while my right hon. Friend has made a good case for containing the fixed price within reasonable limits, we can be quite certain that if we have to go back to the U.S. and make further purchases of F111s the price will not be £2½ million. It probably will not be £3 million, but substantially in excess of that. I welcome most enthusiastically Anglo-French co-operation in the air. I hope that I will not betray a private communication when I say that when my right hon. Friend concluded his agreement with M. Messmer I sent him a telegram of congratulation. But I believe that I was somewhat premature, because difficulties have arisen which deserve a very brief analysis.
The basic fact is that there is as yet no agreed specification for the aircraft. What we want is a strike reconnaissance aircraft—and I do not dissent from the value which my right hon. Friend attaches to the rôle of reconnaissance in keeping the peace. The French want an interceptor which will be much faster than the aircraft which we envisage and which, accordingly, will be more costly. The main reason why there has been this


escalation of development costs is the two different rôles which the two sides of Anglo French co-operation have been trying to promote. What is emerging seems to be a hybrid, and I am not sure whether it will be the sort of aircraft which we want.
The decision to proceed has been delayed until 1st January, 1969. This coming year will be what some Frenchmen have been calling the social year of France in which President de Gaulle, having seen the value at the last election which Frenchmen attach to economic and social reform, will spend a large proportion of the budget on social and economic progress and development. If the French do that, I can declare quite categorically that they will be in a position in which, apart from any other consideration, they have to make a choice between the airbus and the AFVG.
They are not happy about the AFVG. It is very likely that, having proposed to spend up to £250 million on development costs between our two countries, the time will come when the French decide that they cannot proceed with the AFVG. What will then be the situation? What does that leave my right hon. Friend with—at best, the prospect of 50 United States aircraft already described as doubtful in performance and uncertain in their rôle. This is a very high price to pay for Anglo-French co-operation in a situation from which the French may readily withdraw.
I do not think that we should make snap decisions. We must recognise that we are faced by a major difficulty and that what is probably necessary above all is for the Government to make the basic decision for recasting the whole of the aircraft industry in order to make a reorientation if these schemes fall through. Failing that, we shall find ourselves hooked on the F111. So far from there being an expansion in Anglo-French cooperation unfolding before us, we shall see ourselves constrained and limited and orientated towards the United States. That would be an ill day for this country.

6.23 p.m.

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: I congratulate the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman). He has

always been consistent in his speeches in the House on this great industry. He has shown much courage in what he has written. I only wish that the Secretary of State had been present to hear his speech. Soon after he made his speech, the right hon. Gentleman left the Chamber and we have not seen him since. This is treating the House with great discourtesy. The right hon. Gentleman, in his speeches, is always ready to take it out of other people, but he does not like people taking it out of him. He can dish it out, but he cannot take it. The House will not tolerate this sort of arrogance from a Minister.
The right hon. Gentleman complained about the questions asked of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). In a speech of nearly an hour, he hardly answered any of my right hon. Friend's questions. My right hon. Friend showed great restraint in the way in which he put his questions.
May I refer to what the hon. Member for Coventry, North said about costs. I am sure that he put his finger on the point. For years, the contracts branch—I do not say this against the individuals of the various Ministries—is just not up to those in industry. There are not enough of them. They are not clever enough, and they do not know their way round. I have implored the Ministers in successive Governments to bring in outside cost accountants who might be a match for some of those in the industry who try to take the taxpayers for a ride in getting excess profits. I am sure that if something like this had been done with the TSR2, much would have been saved.
The first quarter of an hour of the Secretary of State's speech was directed to members of his Left Wing, very few of whom are here. His peroration also was directed to them. I suppose that, in anticipation of the time when they read HANSARD, he said all the nice things to keep them quiet about British commitments in the Far East, which he hardly touched on at all as far as this aircraft is concerned. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) wishes to intervene, I will give way, but I ask him not to whisper.

Mr. Thomas Swain: I suggested that the hon. Gentleman might be leaving school at the end of this term.

Sir A. V. Harvey: I do not follow the hon. Gentleman. He has been here for little of the debate. If he had heard what we heard, he would not feel very pleased about it.
The Secretary of State talked about the economy and gave figures for the aircraft industry up to 1980. Very few of us will be in the House when we reach that year. The Government had a National Plan which they blazed on the television and in the Press. Within 18 months it was in the wastepaper basket. A Government which cannot get out a National Plan which lasts for more than 18 months and which talks about what will happen in 1980 to aircraft not yet designed is asking a lot of the House and the taxpayer. The Government said at the election that they would not increase taxation. Now they are trying to tell us what an aircraft will cost in 1980.
It is wrong for the Minister to talk about the Anglo-French variable geometry aircaft as being an aircraft which is coming along. It is not coming along. The two sides are diametrically opposed in their requirements. The right hon. Gentleman talked about development costs of £300 million for the two countries. He cannot estimate what the cost will be ten years hence. It is very wrong of the right hon. Gentleman to bring this aircraft into the argument.
If the Secretary of State wants to bring it into the argument, I should like to quote some figures which appeared in Flight International on 6th April this year. On the left hand side there is shown:
Total cost of TSR2. 130 delivered to R.A.F. Government estimate—£690 million.
On the right hand side is shown the cost of the alternative:
Total spent on TSR2 at date of cancellation—£195 million. Contractors' compensation—£70 million. Total cost of F111K, 50 delivered to R.A.F. (dollar currency)—£138 million. Cost of at least 100 AFVGs to achieve with 50 F111Ks. the same air power (nearly ten years later) as 130 TSR2s—£287 million.
The total cost of the items on the right hand side is £690 million, and the cost of the TSR2 on the left hand side is, strangely enough, £690 million. This does

not take into account escalation in the United States. It does not take into account the possibility—and it could happen if we go into Europe—of devaluation of the £. Where would we stand with the Americans, with such a big order, if we were to devalue by 25 or 30 per cent.? Not one Member would want to pay that price to get into Europe.
Therefore, I do not think that the figures which the right hon. Gentleman gave today are very relevant. I only wish that he had told us, when talking about the TSR2, what Wing Commander Beamont said to myself and a number of other people. He was the test pilot of the TSR2. He said that in the flying which he did in this aircraft—he did practically all of it—it gave less trouble in tests than the Canberra ten or 15 years ago. In fact, he said that the aircraft gave no trouble at all; it was magnificent. It flew supersonic and had tremendous performance and did all that the Chiefs of Staff required of it.
The right hon. Gentleman went out of his way deliberately to denigate the British effort. It was bad enough that the Home Secretary, when Minister of Aviation, should have a steamroller go over the jigs and tools. The hon. Member for Coventry, North was generous enough to say that he thought that that was for secrecy purposes. That is a bit far-fetched. They could have been stored in a hangar and sealed and nobody would have known any different. I know why the Government destroyed the jigs and tools. At that time they had a majority of three. They wondered what might have happened if the Tories had reversed that decision. It seems an extraordinary thing to do when an aircraft is in doubt to destroy the jigs and tools. It was an unforgivable act on the part of the Labour Government. It has never been explained.
The order for 50 F111Ks is not the end of the road. If the Anglo-French aircraft is not built, 50 aircraft will not suffice. There are bound to be accidents. Every new type which comes into service either lands with its undercarriage up or overshoots or undershoots. They are not always fatal accidents, but aircraft will be written off. With our forces divided between Europe and other theatres, there will not be enough aircraft and more F111Ks must be ordered from the United States.
Some of us have had dealings with the United States aircraft industry. I competed with it in the firm for which I used to work for a number of years. While the American Government may take one view of what they say and what are their intentions, the view of the aircraft industry in the United States is quite another thing. It is a well-known fact that in Australia and New Zealand, where B.A.C. has been trying to sell B.A.C. 1–11s, the Americans have been there saying that it is no good their buying a British aircraft because in four or five years' time there will not be an industry in Britain to supply them with spares.
That is the sort of competition which is going on in the Middle East and in the Far East. It is public knowledge that the American aircraft industry is out to destroy the aircraft industry, not only of Britain, but of Western Europe. The American aircraft industry does not want an aircraft industry or an electronics industry in Western Europe. It wants it all for itself. I have had personal experience of all this.
The fact is that if we go into Europe, we stand a better chance on that score by getting together with our friends in Europe. The Labour Government, however, did not start off very well. The first thing they did when they came into power two years ago was to send a Minister to Paris to try to cancel the Concord. They then found that they could not do it. Had they done it or tried to do it, General de Gaulle would have gone to the International Court at The Hague and there would have been large damages to pay. So the Government have got the Concord, and I am pleased that they have. It is a venture which, even with the American supersonic aircraft now in train, is likely to pay off as a complementary type.
When the Home Secretary was Minister of Aviation, he said that we might pay less but that we could not pay more for these aeroplanes. I found that very difficult to follow. Then, on 13th December, 1965, the Secretary of State said that there was a guaranteed full delivery date not later than January, 1970, that the ceiling price would be about £2·1 million and that there would be credit terms up to 1977.
If I understood correctly, the Minister this afternoon said that we are now to pay

rather more in the first 10 years. Can we be told in the winding-up speech tonight how much we are to pay in the first 10 years? Let the public and hon. Members below the Gangway opposite realise that the cost of these aircraft is not included in the present Estimates. We are getting them "on tick" from America. This is a legacy with which the next Conservative Government will have to deal. The present Government will not have to pay the bill because they will be out of office years before that happens. It is for these vast sums that we are pledging the taxpayers' credit.
What worries me is that with the Phantoms and the C130s, the total cost at the moment, without spares, is about £660 million, and in dollars. We never hear it mentioned by the Government that we are parting with foreign exchange. Even if the TSR2 had cost a bit more, at least we would have kept our men employed in this important industry. We would have prevented them leaving this country to go to North America and elsewhere to work and we would have saved foreign exchange, which would have meant a great deal to this country.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, in the House of Lords, has been far franker than anybody on the Government Front Bench in this House. He revealed that the ceiling price had not been agreed although the contract had been signed. He said that a figure of about 2½ million per aircraft was still valid.
I would like to be told whether the Government have taken the advice of the Australian Government, who placed an order quite a long time ago for these aircraft, and what their terms were. Do the Australians have an escalation clause? Had the Labour Party when in opposition not gone out of their way to denigrate the TSR2, as they did publicly, Britain might have landed an order in Australia for TSR2s.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Rubbish.

Sir A. V. Harvey: The hon. Member sits there muttering to himself. Does he wish to intervene? I wish that he had the courage to stand up and say what he wanted to say. He was not in the House at that time. If he looks up the newspapers, he will find that the Labour Party said everything they could against the TSR2. When the Australian mission


came to London, it went on to America and placed an order there.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: As the Minister who tried to sell the TSR2 to the Australians and who was there three weeks, I confirm what my hon. Friend has said. It was said by every Australian Minister that the Labour Party might win the next election and that they were against the TSR2.

Sir A. V. Harvey: I hope that the hon. Member for Feltam (Mr. Russell Kerr) is now satisfied. If he is not satisfied with that, nothing will satisfy him. That was the fact.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West referred this afternoon to the Polaris submarines. Mr. Thorneycroft, when Minister of Defence, said that the cost, including all weapons, would be about £70 million each. On 24th February this year, the Minister of State, Board of Trade, said in reply to a Question that the original cost and the present cost were £50 million and £52 million, respectively. Can we be told a little more about the Polaris figures? It is important to know what the escalation has been since that order was placed.
I am all for having the F111Ks, because if we do not have them we will not have anything. I want the Royal Air Force to be strong, but it will not be strong in the right way, because I do not think that the numbers of these aircraft are nearly sufficient. Further aircraft will have to be ordered.
When the Secretary of State for Defence referred today to the additional 500 miles range of the F111K, he did not refer to the load of the aircraft. It is important to know what the load was. Was the aircraft flying in a reconnaissance rôle or was it carrying high-explosive bombs?
The right hon. Gentleman was particularly coy about the nuclear rôle of the F111K. He knows perfectly well that this aircraft has a nuclear rôle, although nobody hopes that it will be used. It has a dual rôle with high-explosive weapons also. The right hon. Gentleman must be completely honest with the House about this so that we know what the aircraft can do and what its rôle will be.
I would like also to be told in the winding-up speech how long the Canberras

have to last. These aircraft are now nearly 20 years old and many of them have given trouble in maintenance in the squadrons in the Far East. We are entitled to know, and the aircrews are entitled to know, when the Canberra will be phased out completely.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: They are very popular in Vietnam.

Sir A. V. Harvey: My hon. Friend says that they are very popular in Vietnam. He means when they are being flown by the Australians. They are still doing a good job. Nevertheless, I do not want to see military aircraft approaching 25 years of age in our Air Force.
The morale in the Air Force is particularly high. I do not think that the Service has ever been in better shape. It is under good leadership. I can, however, see a steady rundown in that great Service by integration of commands and undoubtedly, when forces are brought home from other countries, there will be a surplus of personnel.

Mr. Robert Howarth: Does not the hon. Member realise that that last statement of his rather contradicts what was said by one of his hon. Friends a little earlier? The hon. Member has just said that the morale of the Royal Air Force is particularly high. Not long before, his hon. Friend told us that it was particularly low. I wonder who is right?

Sir A. V. Harvey: My hon. Friend said nothing of the kind. What he said was that when he talked to the personnel they were anxious about the future. The answer is that people in the Royal Air Force are a very intelligent lot. They can see ahead and see what the form will be. They are apprehensive. Their morale is good, but they want backing up. I hope that we shall be told more about the future of the Royal Air Force.
In connection with the F111K, we should be told what is the rôle of that aircraft in the Far East. Will there be a rôle for it? The Secretary of State merely touched upon it today when he said that it might go to various theatres very quickly in the event of an emergency. However, it is well known that we had V-bombers out in Singapore during the confrontation with Indonesia, although


we did not hear whether they had nuclear weapons available.
We must know how these 50 aircraft are to be used, because I do not think there are enough to split them up between Europe, the Middle East and possibly the Far East. The Secretary of State cannot go on giving driblets of information. He has been less than frank on every occasion, and this afternoon he was even less frank than usual.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: The last two speakers have given us very well-informed and persuasive defences of the TSR2, and that fact gives me the opportunity of beginning my own speech by defending the Secretary of State on this point. The case which he makes as between the F111 and the TSR2 is overwhelmingly strong, and today he put forward a most convincing case. I have always thought that the TSR2 was a good plane but that the smallness of the market made it far too expensive a proposition. Accordingly, one had to have a long-range reconnaissance plan to go before the F111.
On the benches opposite there has been a tendency to deal in too great and finnicky detail with matters long past and to ignore the very much more important issues which my right hon. Friend's statement raised. I feel that particularly about the Opposition Front Bench, because whenever right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite speak in debates on defence, constantly one asks oneself what is their policy, what would they do? We do not even know whether it is Official Opposition policy to buy the F111, the TSR2, or neither, and what commitments they think that these planes should carry out.
I want, if I may, to deal instead with what I believe to be the much more urgent and important part of what my right hon. Friend said today, which was about the rôle of the F111. What is the point of arguing about different types of long-range strike reconnaissance planes if we are not sure whether we shall need a strike reconnaissance, for what purpose, for how many years and in what parts of the world? I am sorry that the Opposition have not addressed themselves to that more, because that is what matters.
When I think back on this afternoon, the most significant point which my right hon. Friend made was when I asked him whether the Prime Minister's statement last June about our continuing commitments in Asia throughout the 1970s still represents Government policy. He did not answer in a direct way at all, and it is plain from that, from other hints and other information which I have received—from some well-informed quarters I have even received congratulations on the ground of having contributed something to the sanity of our defence policy—I have come to the conclusion that the Prime Minister's statement about our world rôle in the 1970s no longer represents Government policy. It was a clear and bold statement, but events have shown it to have been mistaken. Very wisely, it has now been abandoned.
It is plain from my right hon. Friend's statement today that the question now is how early in the 1970s are we proposing to withdraw from our commitments in Singapore, Malaysia and the Gulf. That is the only uncertainty left about Government policy—that and precisely what commitments we shall have to cover when those are withdrawn.
I should like, if I may, to ask this question, with special reference to our need for the F111 aircraft. I beg the Government as soon as possible to make clear where we stand on this issue. It is not fair to our allies, to our Service men or to the aircraft industry to continue the obscurity on the vital question of what our commitments will be in the 1970s.
Plainly, if the major statement of our overseas policy which the Prime Minister made last year still represented Government policy, there would be an inescapable need not only for the F111 aircraft but for more than 50 of them. If that statement still represents Government policy, in addition to a larger number of F111s, there is a continuing need for powerful maritime air power. There is no question that under the circumstances which the Prime Minister outlined we would need that, too. If his statement still stands, we need more troops in the Far East today, instead of the Secretary of State going to the Far East and bringing back thousands and thousands of troops. If it were true that his job was, as the Prime Minister stated, to prevent the


eyeball to eyeball confrontation of the United States and China in Asia, the Secretary of State should have gone to Asia to reinforce the troops there and not take them out.
It is as well that the Government have thought again about the major rôle in the 1970s. If we are to stay there, as the Prime Minister outlined, the defence structure is inadequate and inappropriate. The Ministry of Defence planners are very able people, who are not responsible for the high level planning on which our policy is founded. Suppose they were given the task of assuming that we have to maintain this world peace-keeping rôle in the 1970s and we were asked to devise the most expensive and inappropriate defence structure to carry it out. How would they begin? They would begin by buying a highly sophisticated, extremely expensive long-range bomber with a nuclear capacity. They would buy it from the United States, and they would keep it as far from any area of peace-keeping as possible so that it was totally invisible and unrealised until it was used.
Their second step would be to phase out the carriers, which have proved to be the most cost-efficient peace-keeping system which we have had. Finally, they would bring back our troops and station them in Hampshire and Wiltshire. That is how the M.O.D. would go about it if asked to create the most expensive and inappropriate structure. That is what we have now, and that is the defence policy of Her Majesty's Government. Given the assumptions of the Prime Minister's statement last year, this defence structure is pure lunacy. Fortunately, there is no reason to suppose that the assumptions laid down by the Prime Minister last year still stand. Certainly they make no sense at all. I cannot believe that my right hon. Friend would keep all those commitments and then weaken our forces, simply trusting to luck that nothing unpleasant happens. I cannot believe that that is seriously the intention for the 1970s.
Today, my right hon. Friend indicated a different attitude towards our commitments. He said that we would go, but not within two years. He was sure that no one would think that we should go within two years, and I cordially endorse that. He hinted about a fall-back posi-

tion in Australia. He referred to me at that point, and I regret that he did not allow me to intervene to ask him a little more about what he had in mind. It was clear from what he said, however, that the Government are no longer committed to this Asian rôle throughout the 1970s. They are not prepared to say when we are going, but it is plain that we are going some time in the early 1970s.
Thus, I come to the point that we are buying these F111s and we shall buy, apparently, the AFVGs not to maintain our east of Suez rôle throughout the 1970s, but simply to maintain the option of staying there if things work out that way. It is worthwhile making this distinction. It may be that the Government now accept that we shall be clear of these commitments in the early 1970s, but, because they have refused to take a firm decision there, they are now forced to go on buying the F111, the AFVGs and a whole lot of other defence equipment which I will enumerate because they might not leave in the early 1970s and might go through to the late 1970s.
Thus, though it would seem churlish to criticise the move of the Government away from a firm commitment to remain east of Suez throughout the 1970s and into their new position of going earlier, but not saying when, one must accept the terrible defect in that policy in that it does not enable one to make any effective defence economies, so that one must go on spending as though one were staying in the area indefinitely. This means that, following this policy, one must continue to buy a long-range reconnaissance plane and many other things, and it is worth considering those other things. Unless we know that we shall be clear of these commitments by the early 1970s, we must buy the F111, the AFVG, 164 Phantoms and build naval vessels now on the assumption of having an escort fleet in the 1970s. All these things must result from this commitment.
On the other hand, if the Government had the courage to say plainly that they will be out by the early 1970s, then automatically such an escort fleet becomes too big—it could be cut by a substantial number without danger—and many other economies would follow—if only the Government would say, "We are going by the early 'seventies" instead of "We


are perhaps going by the early seventies". Despite this, scores of millions of £s could be saved. For example, the "Leander" frigates being built for the Royal Navy——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must link his speech to the Motion.

Mr. Mayhew: I was tempted away from the F111 buy, which is the subject of this debate, into giving other instances of the same economic principles which should oblige the Government to firm-up on their new attitude towards commitments.
It has been suggested that the naming of a date is irrelevant. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) asked for an assurance, in connection with the purchase of the F111, that my right hon. Friend would never name a set date for withdrawing from this commitment. I suggest that we must distinguish between two things; between setting a date which is too early—as was perhaps done in the case of Aden and, to begin with, in respect of Malta—and not setting any date at all. We all agree on the first, but does the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West really mean that it is always wrong to set a term to our commitments, even though the date announced may be some years ahead?
If so, I warn him that if we are not prepared to do that, then he must be prepared to work out the economic and planning consequences. If a date is not set, we will find that we are unable, for example, to plan a withdrawal to avoid unemployment. We would find ourselves in the position of having bought more F111s than it would be possible to use. And when the time came to leave—which would not be a time we had chosen but an arbitrary time laid down by circumstances or a political change; it would be a time which would be the least convenient to us—it would probably be a time most humiliating to ourselves. I would like to go into this matter in detail, but I would not be in order in doing so.
I am sure that, while we should welcome the indication that we will not maintain this rôle through the 'seventies, if our policy is to make sense for defence and political planning, and if we are to make economies and get the right air-

craft to buy, we must make it clear that we will be out of this commitment by the early 'seventies. This would enable economies to be made in our aircraft buy, and also in other parts of our defence budget.
My right hon. Friend said that we needed the F111 because we might have a fall-back position in Australia. I gathered him to indicate that we may be clear of Singapore and Malaysia and may wish to fall back to Australia. I gathered that my right hon. Friend was saying to myself that I was in favour of a presence in Australia and therefore I would want the F111s. I suggest that everything depends on what sort of presence my right hon. Friend has in mind in these conditions. The House and the country would be extremely interested to know more about his thinking on this issue.
I believe that if we are clear of Singapore, Malaysia and the Gulf by the early 'seventies, we will still need some sort of presence in Australia. We would still need to perform three functions. First, a small presence there—perhaps £30 million to £40 million defence cost would be involved—would reinforce the capability there in the unlikely event of the territory of Australia or New Zealand being attacked. In such circumstances the British people would want to make a contribution to the defence of those countries. The second function would be to make a possible contribution to any United Nations peace-keeping force that might be there. The third function would be to look after the internal security of our remaining colonial possessions.
Whether one needs the F111 for such functions is a question to be decided. Whether one needs, in addition to the F111s, some other capability—for example, if the Australians had the F111 function and we produced the naval element or could deal with our part of the commitment with fewer planes of this type—is also a matter to be considered. But if one got into this posture of withdrawing and falling back to have a residual presence in Australia, one would certainly not need 51 F111s, 100 to 150 AFVGs and 154 Phantoms, for such quantities would be not only grossly expensive but ineffective.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the hon. Gentleman leaving the Harriers out of consideration?

Mr. Mayhew: I have mentioned the circumstances. I will not go into the type of aircraft but that would be necessary.
My right hon. Friend made a convincing case for the F111 as against the TSR2, and I hope and believe that the great majority of my hon. Friends will support him in this matter. I equally believe that he would have the same support if he were to indicate a new attitude towards our east of Suez rôle in the 'seventies. I therefore urge him to recognise that, if be wishes to make real economies in defence expenditure and to have a defence and overseas policy which makes sense for the future, he must make up his mind about when we will be clear of these commitments and impose British interests and a British view on events east of Suez in the years ahead.

6.57 p.m.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: The hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) brought a note of reality back into the debate. Such a note had been lacking in the speeches which preceded his, notably because one gathered from their remarks that this was a debate about the TSR2 and not about the F111. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is a waste of time raking over the ashes of this question, particularly since the matter was resolved about two years ago.
We should address our minds to the question the hon. Member for Woolwich, East asked: namely, what is the purpose of the F111, what rôle do we expect it to have in the Far East, as well as in Europe, and whether there is any necessity for such an aircraft at all? This question is asked in the Liberal Amendment.
There is a difference of attitude between the Government Front Bench and the whole of the Tory Party, on the one hand, and the Liberal Party and some enlightened hon. Gentlemen opposite, on the other, about whether such an aircraft is really necessary. I was grateful to the Minister for having addressed his remarks to this question with such thoroughness, although I could not accept his arguments, for reasons which I shall give later.
I claim that we in the Liberal Party have been absolutely consistent on this issue. We voted with the Government on the cancellation of the TSR2 and my hon. Friends and I have made it clear that we

supported that policy only on the assumption that it did not imply the subsequent purchase of American aircraft. In debates since then I have voted and spoken against the purchase of the F111. It is to be regretted, as the Liberal Amendment makes clear, that such large sums of the taxpayers' money is to be squandered on this aircraft. The fact that the F111 will be purchased on H.P. instead of by cash only means that we shall feel the burden in precisely the same way, but spread over a period of years—perhaps after this Parliament has expired and perhaps because the Minister does not think that it will have any effect on the electoral prospects of his party. I hope that the taxpayers will bear this in mind and will appreciate that the purchase of an expensive aircraft like this will make it very much more difficult to secure the reductions in taxation that we would all like to see.
The Secretary of State gave a figure of £336 million as the total cost of the Fl11 programme over ten years. This is already a very substantial increase on any figure I have heard quoted hitherto. The figure given in The Times, which no one has yet disputed, was £280 million, so in a very short time we already have an increase of £56 million on the F111 programme. I should like to know how that difference is made up. One can see only £5 million arising from the inflationary increases of raw material and labour in the United States, if that amounts to £100,000 per aircraft, as has been stated. The figure does not, presumably, include the cost of modifying the bombs, because the Secretary of State said that the modification would have been necessary for the Phantom and other supersonic aircraft which are to come into service, Presumably, there are other additions which need to be identified.
The right hon. Gentleman played down very much the possibility of increases in the cost of spares, but I understand that the initial contracts will cover only the first two years, and that after that the manufacturers may ask whatever they like—provided, of course, they are getting the same price from the United States Air Force. That is not an adequate protection. I believe that there will be very substantial escalation in the cost of spares and, in fact, General Dynamics admitted this to a meeting of hon. Members a year or 18 months ago.
The other very substantial sum with which we might be faced—and I am glad that the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) mentioned this—is for additional orders beyond the 50 aircraft which we have already contracted to purchase. If the Anglo-French variable geometry programme were to slip, or even if it were not to come off at all—and that I would very much regret—we would, according to the Government's present policies, have to place further orders for the F111 to make up the short fall. I am very anxious lest we should be entering into a continuing dollar commitment that will extend into the late 'seventies. This is a very good reason for considering carefully whether we want such aircraft.
We have had references to the unwisdom of purchasing the aircraft before the technical snags have been ironed out, and the Minister himself referred to an article in Flight of 30th March which, he said gave a very good summary of the difficulties that have been encountered. He did not give the House any quotation from the article and, having looked it up meantime, can see why. Of the development programme the article says:
The F111 programme has encountered several serious snags. The empty weight of both F111 A and F111B is up on estimates; a drag problem exists (partly due to excess weight); and engine inlet and exhaust troubles have arisen. According to General Dynamics, an increase of 16 per cent. in the empty weight over original estimates has occurred …
The article then goes on to describe how that increase is made up: I do not propose to read the whole article, but I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that what I read is typical of the difficulties that have arisen in the development programme. I am not certain that we can be confident that these can be overcome before delivery——

Mr. Robert Howarth: I do not have that article in front of me, but, speaking from memory, I believe that there is a concluding paragraph which gives a rather different impression from that given by the hon. Gentleman. Am I right?

Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Member is welcome to have the article and can then make his own speech later on. As the Secretary of State suggested that we

should look up the article I did so while other hon. Members were speaking, and I have given what I think is a fair summary of it.
I would also refer to a recent article in The Times, where, referring to the Secretary of State for Defence, the author said:
His haste in buying the aircraft before it is cleared might have been justified if there had been a vital military need for the F111, but the prospect of a further rundown east of Suez has made the military arguments even less convincing than they were.
Here we come to the important questions raised by the hon. Member for Woolwich, East. Is the aircraft, whatever the Secretary of State says, primarily needed for an east of Suez rôle? Or, on the assumption that there was a fixed time-scale for our withdrawal, as he suggests and which I endorse, would it still be necessary to have this aircraft for the European rôle? Or could we so rearrange our procurement before the beginning of the 'seventies that the aircraft would become unnecessary?
The primary characteristics of the Fill which have always been stated as important in this context are its range and its ability to operate from short, unprepared airfields, which arises from its variable geometry wings. Its range would be of primary importance if we were to operate in the Far East, because it is becoming increasingly difficult to find staging posts between here and Singapore at which to halt, and we have lost many of the overflying rights we used to enjoy in the Middle East and which made it possible for aircraft of comparatively short range to get out there by easy stages.
Further, if we were to have this policy of bases in the Indian Ocean, of which we have heard nothing today, we would need aircraft of very long range, because those bases are thousands of miles away from any theatre of action in which British forces might be involved. The aircraft would require at least a long ferry range, if not an actual service potential when carrying a bomb load. I would therefore like to be told whether it is the Government's intention to pursue this expensive policy of building bases in the Indian Ocean. If that is the case, all the figures we have had today of comparison between the TSR2 and the F111 must be modified accordingly.
I am open to correction, but I do not believe that it was ever suggested that the TSR2 should operate in the Far East. If that were the case, the cost of the construction of the bases would have to be added to both sides of the equation, but one becomes very suspicious when, in a fairly long speech, not a word is said by the Secretary of State of whether the Government intend to proceed with this policy.
Returning to the European rôle, I think that I am right in saying that the Secretary of State claims that such an aircraft would be as necessary inside Europe as outside it, and his reason was that in Europe we would be likely to be up against a very sophisticated opposition, but this is not the only aircraft we have in our procurement programme with a strike and reconnaissance capability. We have the Phantom, which I would have thought one could use in the European rôle as a Canberra replacement, and we have the P1 127 vertical take-off and landing aircraft which would be suitable for areas in which prepared airfields did not exist. Again, it is difficult to see what its rôle would be in the European context, but I understand that this is partly intended as a replacement for the Hunter GA9.
It is almost impossible to believe that one would purchase an aircraft of this complexity if one had been thinking entirely in terms of Europe. I do not think that that argument will stand up. Among the examples given by the Secretary of State was Cyprus. It is ludicrous to think of reconnaissance by the F111 in such a situation as that. Helicopters were needed there. Our Armed Forces were not at all well supplied with helicopters at the time of the Cyprus emergency. To say that we need a variable geometry aircraft costing £2·6 million to cope with a civil emergency such as that really is ludicrous.
The other example given by the right hon. Gentleman was the confrontation, where he said that the fighting had been keep at guerilla level in the jungle because the enemy knew that we had this strike potential and so did not use their own aircraft against the helicopters and ground forces that were operating there. That probably is a much better argument for the F111, but I suggest that we should never again be involved in a situation of that type.
I think that was the Government's policy. I seem to recall a passage in the White Paper saying that it was the policy of the Government never again to be involved in a policy of the type we had in Indonesia. I sincerely hope that that is the policy, but if so, surely it is wrong for the Secretary of State to quote in support of the contention that we need the F111 what happened in Malaysia. We believe that Britain should not have any rôle in the Far East but should withdraw from that area as soon as we can, consistent with our obligations. We do not believe that an aircraft of this specification is necessary in Europe. We do know that vast burdens will be laid on the British people by this policy perhaps even beyond those laid by the original purchase of 50 of these aircraft. For all these reasons we shall vote against the Government tonight.

7.11 p.m.

Mr. Peter Mahon: In commenting on the important matter before the House today one must ask oneself whether the Government are endeavouring to hold an even keel between necessary defence expenditure and the tremendous expenditure in the social field which this Administration must be prepared to accept.
It is fair to say—I put it no higher—that in this fearful war-torn world none of those in a position of authority can afford the luxury of donning the mantle of delightful irresponsibility and accepting the belief that a refusal to participate in the sort of expenditure envisaged today will of necessity provide the open sesame to the economic salvation of our country. We must be careful to guard against such dangerous illusions. Having in my lifetime lived through two devastating wars, I can well see that to eschew expenditure on military projects because of our laudable desire to build homes, schools and hospitals and to improve our social services could sadly in the long run result in placing our country not only in a dangerous situation, but in a contemptible position in the eyes of the world.
I am aware that we are, of course, desirous, in view of our tremendous sacrifices in two catastrophic wars, of adopting a moral posture and of resisting as far as is humanly possible any involvement in future. I cannot erase the memory of


the desire of the late Pope Pius XII to assist in bringing about the peace of the world and the outlandish reaction of Stalin, the Russian leader, who inquired how many divisions he had. It is indeed a hard world and, therefore, with the realism which we have always endeavoured to reveal, we must accept it as we find it and not as we would wish it to be.
With my background it would be impossible to quarrel with colleagues who are anxious to compel a substantial reduction in defence expenditure, but it must not be overlooked that implicit in this desire is the danger of the exposure of our people to the greatest possible trials and tribulations. If we have gained anything at all in our experience of the past we must agree that nothing is so devastating to the morale of our people as not to be able to cope with a state of emergency. There are times when we must
tell the truth, and shame the devil.
Why are we pursuing this course today? Far be it from my desire to deprive hon. Members opposite of their brief moments of glory. We are buying American planes because in 1965 we cancelled the TSR2. We cancelled the TSR2 because maybe at that particular time we were imbibing too much "Worcester Sauce". Today it would appear to have lost its flavour. I disagree with an hon. Member who said earlier that the Labour Government were responsible for the abandonment of the TSR2 or for the cost of the TSR2 being abandoned. One does not wish to be so sadly nostalgic but I wonder, if we could put the clock back, whether we would make the same decision. I await with interest my hon. Friend's comments on this aspect of the situation.
My constituents played a tremendous part in producing the Canberra jet bomber. It was technically ahead of its day and it sold in thirteen countries. Then followed the Lightning and then the TSR2, which again was technologically ahead of anything else in the world, particularly in what the Royal Air Force at that time wanted it to do. However, the orders, lamentably, were far too few for the research and development costs involved. This meant that each aircraft became too expensive. It is true that the Government achieved some of their objectives

by cancellation of the TSR2. First, there was the reduction in Government expenditure. Secondly, there was reduction in the aircraft industry labour force. The third stated objective was to maintain a viable aircraft industry.
Those aims were accomplished with varying degrees of success, but cancellation left a big gap; never let there be any dubiety about that. Once again there is a high level of unemployment in Lancashire. Without wishing to be churlish or wise after the event, one is perhaps entitled to ask if it would have been better to produce this magnificent plane—this veritable box of tricks—and to have endeavoured to weather the financial storm. Most certainly there was an impasse, a dilemma, then as there is now. At that time my sympathies were in the first place accorded to my constituents, the aircraft workers. My sympathies were also with myself as a newly-elected Member, as I was in the pillory which I thought rather unjustified at that time. Lastly my sympathies were with the Government because I believed at the time that they had been left too little room for compromise.
I was a new Member and the Prime Minister, too, was new. Today he is, if he will forgive the metaphor, and as they say in Lancashire, an old dog for a hard road. Acting on the principle that half a loaf is better than no bread. I asked the Prime Minister for 75 TSR2s. He said, as indeed the Secretary of State said today, that this would not ease the position and that regrettably the decision was irrevocable.
I am not the sort of individual who believes that democracy is good and wholesome only when I am getting my own way. I accepted the position with some semblance of grace, heartburning, heartrending, unbearable as it was for myself and those whom I represent. Even in retrospect, and even though it is easy to be wise after the event, I would not agree that it is wise this evening to indulge in recrimination to the extent that some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have done today. There are so many factors which have militated for so long a period against the production of this wonder plane. The mammoth and most tragic error is that it was considered from the start that for this particular project a


bottomless reservoir of wealth was available.
Also prejudicial to progress was the rapid change of Ministers of Aviation—12 Ministers in as many years. There was no statesmanship and, if that was not bad enough, no salesmanship. There was a confession of failure on the part of one hon. Gentleman who said that he, along with some colleagues, spent three weeks in Australia to no avail. That was a very honest expression of the position at that time.
Viewing the position dispassionately—and in Preston it must be conceded that I was very close to events—I could not dismiss the thought that, whoever formed the Government following the October, 1964 Election, the TSR2 would not have a long existence. Regrettably, the purchase of American planes is a movement far removed in my estimation from bolstering up the strength and prestige of our own aircraft industry. The cancellation of innumerable projects, with constant unemployment, redundancy payments and mobility of labour, with all its detrimental effects on the stability of family life, is also instrumental in sapping the dignity, initiative and morale of our working people.
If we have the slightest knowledge of industrial life, we must be aware that the cancellation of large projects brings in its trail tremendous disillusionment—not Only unemployment, not only the loss of a man's skill and craft, but also the unhappy thought that industrial "know-how" is being scattered to the four winds. How long can the successful existence of this country continue on this basis? Recession, retrogression, changing horses whilst crossing the stream, are sapping the initiative and morale of our working people and undermining the strength, confidence and great resilience which we know they possess.
I shall not by any stretch of the imagination join in the strictures indulged in by right hon. and hon. Members opposite. They were entitled, if they thought fit, to do that. I could say much about the sufferings of those in my constituency, through one cancellation and industrial upset after another, continuing all along the line, but I shall not do so, because I should be in great danger of incurring your displeasure, Mr. Speaker; and this I am not anxious to do.
There may be compensations in pursuing this policy today. The Secretary of State was eloquent and sincere. He was in no doubt that we were traversing the right path. I can only hope that this is the answer for the future. I believe that the key to the future is, above all things, to rekindle the fire of faith in our own people and to eradicate from our own Labour Party philosophy the thought that there is a tolerable level of unemployment. This is new jargon. I have been a long time in public life, as you have, Mr. Speaker, but never have we spoken along these lines.
My advice to the Government and to my colleagues is to perish the thought and remove it from our Government thinking. What we require for the benefit of the country is no looking back, but a continuation of such projects as we have been discussing today. What we require at all times is the highest level of employment and a fully expansionist policy with regard to aircraft, as with regard to shipping and other developments. We want a carefully thought out system of planning, with no cancellations envisaged at any time in the future, and a determined policy to keep Britain and its people at work, and, in so doing, to enhance the security and dignity of the good honest, decent, and upright people of our country.

7.27 p.m.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: I am very glad to follow the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Peter Mahon). We knew his predecessor and we know how deeply involved his constituents are and have been in the aircraft programme.
The Secretary of State did himself less than justice when he sought to say that those of us who criticised the F111 or any aircraft did it—I quote his words—out of malice or commercial interest. That was a very unworthy viewpoint for the Front Bench to put forward in all seriousness. We have had three speeches from the Labour back benches, of which the last was one, which were obviously completely devoid of malice or commercial interest. As the hon. Members for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) and Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) said, we all speak sometimes for our constituents but always with the interests of the defence of the nation in our hearts. It


was particularly unwise for the Secretary of State to make such a statement, because, if such accusations are to be made, people in glass houses should not throw stones.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to Mr. Richard Worcester, who is an aircraft consultant and who is adviser to the Labour Party. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am sorry. I quote The Times of 26th June, 1965, which said that Mr. Worcester
told The Times last night that he had written a report in March, 1964, which was presented to the Labour leadership and read by them in March and April. On June 20 he attended a meeting with the party leaders who appeared to be well satisfied with the report and to accept it.
[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Mr. Worcester went on to claim in an opening meeting that he knew the right hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) extremely well and had done so for many years.
I have here, for greater clarification, a copy of the Worcester plan. This is what he said; this is what the Government did—cancel TSR2, HS681 and P1154. All three were cancelled. Then, put Concord into abeyance. The Government tried to do this but were foiled by the contract terms and the French. Then, order F111 and C141 with possible interaction on ordering Phantom and C130. Both the Phantom and the C130 were ordered.
I could go on to show what Mr. Worcester himself said and what has happened. What he put in his plan clearly shows that he was justified in claiming that his policy was accepted by the Labour leadership. As the hon. Member for Preston, South said, perhaps we were suffering from too much "Worcester sauce" at that time.
The right hon. Gentleman began in avuncular mood, rather like "Uncle Mac" used to talk to listeners in the old days on the B.B.C. He was talking, first, to try to convert those below the Gangway opposite, very few of whom are here today, trying to persuade his Left wing to go into the Lobby in support of the Government tonight. Perhaps, if we have the hon. Members for Woolwich, East and for Coventry, North with us tonight, we may not know how many hon. Members opposite abstain because, although we have a three-line

Whip on our side, the Government side has only a two-line Whip. This is a cunning way of obscuring the number of people who, for reasons of conscience, abstain.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Even if we cannot expect to have the right hon. Gentleman with us in the Lobby, it would be nice if we could have him with us in the Chamber for the debate.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: My hon. Friend expresses a feeling which we all have. The Secretary of State, who began in an avuncular way and later made some very vicious comments which cannot be borne out, has been with us very little. He came in for a moment or two when the hon. Member for Woolwich, East was speaking, but that was all. It is a pity, as this is in many ways a censure debate directed at the right hon. Gentleman, that he should leave his place and be so little with us.
The Secretary of State put before the House a fog of obscurity on the figures. He began by saying that he would put a 15-year plan before us. He dealt in global figures, saying that he had allowed for this factor and that, for X, Y and Z, but he never said for how much they were in the account. When we questioned him on this issue, he confessed that in the 15-year plan the joker in the pack—all hon. Members who play poker will know that one can make a good hand if one has the joker—was the Anglo-French VG, and he told us that he had allowed £150 million for this project, which is still a paper aeroplane. As I understand it, about £350 million will be needed to buy 150 of these aircraft, if we can agree with the French on the operational requirement and the type of aircraft to be produced, and if or when we know anything about the cost.
Strangely enough, when we came to the 10-year programme in the right hon. Gentleman's speech, the Anglo-French VG was left out altogether. In the Defence White Paper last year, at the top of page 11, the Government said:
By the mid-1970s, we intend that the Anglo-French variable-geometry aircraft should begin to take over this and other rôles. Both operationally and industrially, this aircraft is the core of our long-term aircraft programme".
The House will remember that it was the Anglo-French VG and a small number


of F111 which were to form the basis of a viable Royal Air Force force, and there was also to be a contribution to the Navy from the Anglo-French VG because, it was said, it could operate from carriers, or some future carriers. It is surprising that, in the right hon. Gentleman's 10-year programme, this particular joker, of which we know so little was not included. In only eight years, so the White Paper tells us, it is to be the core of the programme.
There was a slight difference of opinion about the number of TSR2s planned. On our side, we thought the 110 had been the project when we left office—I was not a member of the Government in the latter months—and the right hon. Gentleman said that the figure was 158. These were to be replaced with a small number of F111s, 10 of which were to be trained aircraft and 40 to be operational, the F111K.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. Merlyn Rees): As a Minister with responsibility for the Royal Air Force, I must say, for the record, that no one has said that 10 aircraft will form the O.C.U. and will be used for training purposes.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: I can give the facts, but I shall not delay the House by doing so. When we first heard about the F111 and the purchase of 10, we were told that these were training aircraft, that they would be taken in the Mark I form, not suitable for operations, they would not have the avionics, and so on. I doubt that one can manage with many fewer than 10 aircraft for an operational conversion unit and do all that is necessary. Perhaps it may not be the full 10 for that purpose, but we were certainly told that only 40 would be the F111K, modified to suit the R.A.F. requirement.
On the question of cost, when the option was first taken up, we learned about this not from the right hon. Gentleman, because he did not announce it, but from The Times of 7th April, 1965, which had a headline,
Uproar in Commons over scrapping of TSR2. £357 million option on American F111A aircraft.
It was said that the option was £357 million, but there has been an enormous cut-back. We have not taken anything like that number of aircraft, and neither

have we met the capital cost of that sum. The right hon. Gentleman told us today that he thought that the basic cost would be £2·1 million. There were lots of hedges on that, for escalation of wages and prices, an extra £0·1 million for that making £2·2 million, an extra £0·5 million taking us up to the point when the aircraft is modified to meet British requirements, and so on. In answer to a question from me, the right hon. Gentleman confessed that the initial spares, not the continuing spares, and the test equipment would cost just over £1 million per aircraft, £55 million for 50 aircraft.
On that basis, therefore, it is £3·6 million per aircraft. If we are to buy 50, the cost will be about £180 million. So the original option of £357 million has been cut by half. In the absence of other edification, the House can only assume the remainder is to be made up with spending on the Anglo-French VG, the only other aircraft which can meet the operational requirements.
We have been told that it is expected that the 40 F111Ks should be in squadron service and in operation for 10 years. With the need for aircraft to be modified, with the risk of landing accidents, errors of judgment, and so on, can it be thought that a force of 40 aircraft will last us for operational purposes for 10 years? It seems to me that a force of this sort, particularly if it is to be deployed some in this country, some east of Suez, as we were told today, is not a viable force, and certainly will not give us a good cost evaluation.
We have heard a great deal from this Government about getting value for money. This is probably the poorest value for money that has ever been bought. Whenever one produces small numbers of highly sophisticated aircraft, the cost of the simulators, of the training programme, of the spares programme and the rest, is very much larger—one has to have one set of spares for the Phantom, one set for the Anglo-French VG, and one set for the F111—and there can be nothing more uneconomical than having small numbers of highly sophisticated aircraft. One gets poor serviceability and very high costs.
The right hon. Gentleman dodged all our questions, questions put very penetratingly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West


(Mr. Powell). Why does he always castigate the British aircraft industry? It is said that the British aircraft industry is the one in which price escalates. The right hon. Gentleman said this again today. If he looks at the figures, he will find that the United States F111 has escalated from an original estimate of 2·9 million dollars each to 8 million dollars each, a two-and-a-half-times escalation during its development. These figures ought to be brought to the notice of the House. The right hon. Gentleman would put his case more fairly if he said that, when one is operating near the bounds of knowledge, when one's research and development effort is breaking new ground, it is almost impossible to predict all the problems which one will meet or how much it will cost to solve them.
That is why TSR2 escalated and why the Concord will escalate. Can the right hon. Gentleman say that the Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft will not escalate in cost? Can he say with his hand on his heart that the £150 million for research and development is all we shall contribute to the development of that aircraft, and not a penny more? Of course, he cannot. It will be breaking new grounds with its variable geometry layout, and of course the costs will escalate during its development. We should acknowledge that. We are fair in the House and know that this always happens when one is pioneering in a scientific sphere. It happened with atomic power stations, the cost of which escalated in the same way; in many instances they cost double what was expected.
We were told the operational date earlier, when the option was taken up and a statement was issued by the Ministry of Defence that all 50 of the aircraft would be delivered by January, 1970. Today we were told—and this is another slight slant—that they would be in squadron service by 1969. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is right. I am very glad to see that he has just been able to return to the Chamber and give use the privilege of seeing him here and perhaps answering some of the points. If that is the date when they will be in service, and other nations are to get

operational aircraft first, which are they? Is it the U.S.A. ——

Mr. Healey: I said so during the debate. If the hon. Gentleman had listened more carefully to what I said when I was here, he would not have found it necessary to make the remarks which I gather he has been making in the last few minutes.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: I said earlier that I thought that the right hon. Gentleman had lectured us in an avuncular manner. If he is only to come here from time to time to pick up remarks and abuse hon. Members he will be even less welcome, and had better leave the House again. He cannot go on in this arrogant manner of teaching the House. I hope he will apologise. Would he now please withdraw his statement that people who have spoken in the debate or criticised the F111 do it—I took down his words—through malice or commercial interest?

Mr. Healey: I did not say anything of the sort. With respect, if the hon. Gentleman would listen more carefully to what I say, he would not make these absurd allegations. I said that a great deal of the criticism is malicious and ill-founded, and a great deal stems from origins which have a commercial interest at stake. If the hon. Gentleman does not know that to be the case, he is much less well aware of the nature of the aircraft lobbies around the world than I think he is.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Of course, the aircraft lobbies are very powerful. The hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) made exactly the same points and drew the same implication as I did, that it was malice or commercial interest and I am delighted to have the right hon. Gentleman's slight gloss on his statement, which makes it more acceptable to the House.
If only the right hon. Gentleman would not give grist to the opposition lobby mills, the British aircraft industry would succeed in selling its aircraft more successfully. He is always saying that British aircraft escalate in cost and are late, but American aircraft never escalate and will be produced on time. Those words are quoted around the world by American spokesmen.

Mr. Healey: The hon. Gentleman was here when I spoke at the beginning of the debate and when one of his hon. Friends pointed out that there have been accusations of a 50 per cent. escalation in the research and development cost of the F111. I pointed out that according to the earlier figures concealed from the House at the time by the previous Government, there had been an escalation of 500 per cent. in the research and development cost of the TSR2. Those are facts which are well known throughout the world, and it does no credit to the hon. Gentleman to suggest that anybody who refers to them in argument is knocking the British aircraft industry.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: It would perhaps have been better if the right hon. Gentleman had said that the F111 had escalated by 250 per cent. [Interruption.] That is true. I can give the figures. It has escalated from 2·8 million dollars to 8 million dollars. The right hon. Gentleman is always quoting figures against the British aircraft industry, but never against the American. There are some things wrong with the British aircraft industry, but there are also many things wrong with the American aircraft industry.
I am sorry to have taken up the time of the House, but I had made those points in debate and as the right hon. Gentleman had not heard them I wished to make them again. Perhaps the Minister winding up will tell us whether there are penalty clauses on the F111 contract. British contractors have very strict penalty clauses both on delivery dates and on short-fall in performance. If those demands can be made on British contractors, the Government could make the same demands on American contractors.
I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has so failed to answer the penetrating arguments put forward by my right hon. Friend. He shelved them off with a lecture to the school children below the gangway, many of whom were not here. I hope that the House will defeat him tonight and make sure that he is no longer able to mislead us and conceal figures from the House.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Russell Kerr: I do not know what kind of poker school the hon.
Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing) habitually inhabits, but no game of poker that I have ever played in allows the use of jokers in the pack.
Be that as it may, I thought that the hon. Member was a little less than generous to my right hon. Friend who, gave us a speech which was exhaustively, even exhaustingly, thorough. As I presume the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend has only recently returned from a very long and no doubt exhausting trip to the Far East and other places, including, I believe, my own native land.
I speak not only as one who has been very critical of the escalation in the cost of the F111, on which I thought my right hon. Friend's remarks today were only partly reassuring, but also as one who, wanting to see a strong British aircraft industry, has observed with considerable fascination the attempts of hon. Members opposite, both inside and outside the Chamber, to rewrite the history of the TSR2, so that it has become in retrospect the brightest jewel in the crown of British technology and an elequent testimonial to the sagacity, foresight and financial acumen of successive Conservative Ministers of Aviation. In fact, it was nothing of the sort. Whatever its technical attributes, which were very considerable, and which reflected great credit on the designers and those who carried out their plans, the TSR2 project, at least in its financial aspects, was a monmument to confused thinking and was almost criminal in its disregard of the taxpayers' interests in the matter.
If hon. Members opposite doubt that, let them recall, as the Minister did earlier today, the Civil Appropriation Accounts of 1964–65, in which Sir Edmund Compton, a fearless, independent-minded and highly efficient Comptroller and Auditor-General, who has very properly been elevated to be the nation's first Ombudsman, gave a detailed analysis of the rising costs of the TSR2, a story which blows a very loud raspberry at the idea that our Conservative predecessors in government were in any way businesslike in the way they conducted the nation's affairs.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) has just left the Chamber. With the loyal help of the right hon. Member for Stafford and


Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser), he claimed that the TSR2 contract had been lost to Australia because of fear of the arrival of a Labour Government in Britain. That is the most arrant nonsense. I had the great pleasure of pointing out what nonsense it was to the then Minister of Aviation, my former opponent, Mr. Julian Amery, and all I had to do was to quote the remarks of the then Australian Minister of Defence several days after that ridiculous canard first appeared. The Minister, Mr. Athol Townley, indignantly denied that there was any truth in that schoolboy assertion by Mr. Amery and his supporters. I hope that we are not going to have this ridiculous and childish nonsense making a reappearance in this or any future debate.
On the civilised precept—and I hope that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) will forgive my Latin, de mortuis nil nisi bonum, I forbear from elaborating on the rôle of the most recent Conservative Minister of Aviation, Mr. Julian Amery. Likewise I shall not mention the Ferranti scandal, which happened in his time at the Ministry and which so nearly cost the nation and the taxpayers millions of £s. Instead, I shall confine myself to what Sir Edmund Compton had to say in his report:
The TSR2 project began with an estimated development cost of £80–£90 million in 1959"—
my right hon. Friend gave even more interesting figures today—
and rose steadily until in January, 1964, it had reached £240–£260 million.
That is roughly a threefold increase in just over four years.
As an aside, perhaps one should say that, even by reference to the inflation which was so distinctive a feature of successive Conservative Governments, this is good going, though hardly from the taxpayers' point of view. Sir Edmund went on to point out that in May, 1964,
The Ministry of Aviation informed the Ministry of Defence that, while technical problems on the TSR2 project had been underestimated by all concerned"—
that was the understatement of 1964—
they had had occasion over a number of years to make representations to the contractor about the quality of the technical and financial

management of the project, within the main firm and in relation to its sub-contractors.
I shall content myself with one observation only on this. If the then Minister of Aviation had made louder and longer representations on the financial side, the Ferranti scandal would probably have been avoided and so, too, would quite a number of other less-publicised "rackets", each of which played its part in this astronomical escalation of the cost of the TSR2.
From my personal experience in Preston, I can give one example. According to my information, a number of items of heavy capital equipment, with years of usefulness to the manufacturers still in them, were happily charged in full to the Ministry's account for the TSR2—all, of course, on the "cost-plus" basis—without anyone being so indelicate as to mention that an offset of some kind appeared to be indicated, assuming that the firm was to retain them for its own use. My informant, a responsible employee of the company, claims that, for one item alone in this category, some £50,000 was involved.
I mention these matters not to reopen old wounds, and certainly not to disturb the former right hon. Members for Preston, North and Bromley in their well-merited retirement, but merely to remind the House that hon. Members opposite are the last people entitled to castigate my right hon. Friend for the difficulties he faces over the F111K—difficulties which arose not only because of the bungling incompetence of the last Government—my right hon. Friend is an able administrator although perhaps reading a bad brief—but also because he has taken over far too many of the outdated and dangerous policy assumptions of that Government.
Not the least of these is the assumption that it is possible for this country— which is in rather desperate financial straits now, as it was during most of the time the Conservatives were in power—to maintain itself as a major world imperial power able and willing to shoulder burdens and so-called peacekeeping operations—but which so frequently have turned into a modern variant of the old imperialist game of "bashing the wogs".
This bears directly on the current argument about the F111K because, as


has been freely acknowledged, the principal rôle envisaged for the F111K by the Minister and, presumably, the Government, is east of Suez, as a long range strike reconnaissance aircraft. If ever there was a contradiction between stated aims and the means with which it is hoped to carry them out, this is it.
According to this year's White Paper, as I read it, the Government's policy is that never again should Britain have to undertake operations, even on the scale of the recent Indonesian confrontation, outside Europe. One is bound to ask: what rôle could a bomber force of this kind possibly play in small scale policing operations or internal security situations? At 1,500 m.p.h., even the point bombing my right hon. Friend referred to is bound to hit civilians, and plenty of them.
Without going into further detail, I hope that my right hon. Friend even at this late hour—perhaps it is about five minutes past 12 o'clock already—will take a day or two off, go in solitude perhaps to Chequers, and rethink most carefully the assumptions on which his present highly expensive and fundamentally mistaken defence policies are based. I am sure that the Patronage Secretary would view his absence with tolerance and I am sure that the new policy he would produce after such cerebration would not only confound his and my political enemies—who have no real place in this argument—but would make possible those other social objectives which all of us on this side of the House want for the people of Britain, and want soon.

7.56 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman two specific questions to which I hope to receive specific answers. I have asked them both before but to neither has a specific answer been given. When I asked earlier whether the F111K contract had specified in it the price at which replacement aircraft could be purchased, either to make up losses in training accidents or, indeed, through operations, his reply then was that it had not yet reached that stage of contract negotiation.
Presumably, now that the final contract has been signed, we can have a straight answer as to whether or not the price for follow-up replacement aircraft is larger

than for the initial buy. Obviously, if we are to do as the right hon. Gentleman has done and give, five, ten and 15-year forecasts realistically, we must assume a certain rate of attrition in the aircraft which will have to be replaced. That is a reasonable assumption. If they are used in action, the attrition may be very great.
I warn the right hon. Gentleman against the danger of believing that, because an aircraft is expensive and sophisticated, it is in the same measure invulnerable. The Americans have had heavy losses of aircraft in Vietnam against a primitive form of anti-aircraft fire. Incidentally, those losses include Phantoms. The rate of loss emphasises the point. If we only had 40 aircraft operational and lost even 10 per cent. presumably replacements would be needed.
I am extremely worried about spares prices and the agreement that we should pay the same price for spares as the United States Air Force. My recollection of the all-party meeting upstairs, at which the Vice-President of General Dynamics and a senior executive of United Aircraft, which makes the engines, were present, when we asked where the money would come from if they hit unexpected development costs, the answer was that it would come from Government spares.
In other words, we do not contract out of the very great elasticity of development costs merely by having a fixed unit cost for the aircraft. In the renegotiation procedures which, apparently, the American Air Force has for its spares, this works both ways. If the company makes an excessive profit, the renegotiation knocks the price down for spares, but if the profit is below normal then in renegotiation the load is usually put on spares prices rather than on to unit cost prices. This is not just me having a suspicious mind. Anyone who looks at the history of the N.A.T.O. orders for the Lockheed F104 after the two-year umbrella over spare prices will know that in many cases those prices went up by more than 200 per cent.
The Secretary of State endeavoured to discourage hon. Members from criticising the F111 by imputing extremely unworthy motives, if not to all, at least to many of those who presume to criticise him. He also intimated that it might be bad for the morale of the R.A.F. in


some way if the aircraft were criticised. I suspect that in Western Germany there are many people who wish that there had been more criticism of the F104.
We are now in the position of having ordered an aircraft which is in terrible technical trouble. It is in such bad technical trouble with its engines that, instead of trying to cure each problem by modification action, the designers are having to undertake simultaneous modifications to deal with different problems at both ends of the engine, and the results of those modifications therefore cannot be read clearly. This is the sort of panic measure which has to be taken when one is up against a firm commitment date-wise, and that is the position in which United Aircraft finds itself with this engine.
It is fair to say that however high the technical competence of a firm of engine-builders every now and again it produces a "pup", and that is what has happened with this aircraft. It happens to be our misfortune as well as theirs, in the sense that we have ordered it, and that is why I ask the Secretary of State the specific question. If the handling characteristics of the engine are still bad, for instance, if it gets severe surge when the aircraft has to be yawed for one reason or another, if the reheat system blows out even when reheat is selected, as on the Lockheed F104 it is still doing after four years in service, do we take the aircraft, or wait until the trouble has been sorted out, if it can be?
When I put that question before, the Secretary of State answered a different question. He said that if the aircraft did not meet its performance specification we would not take it, but he did not say what the performance specification was. In writing a performance specification it is not usual to cover matters of this kind. There are certain things which can be covered definitively—what is known as the re-light envelope, the conditions of altitude, attitude, speed, temperature at which to re-light an engine which has had a flame-out. There are certain things like that which can be specified. One can even get a guaranteed surge line curve, but it would normally be assumed that an aircraft could be flown in normal operating conditions without losing engines from compressor surge. I think that

the aircraft is suffering from surge rather than stall, although it has been said to be suffering from stall rather than surge. Perhaps it does that as well.
I hope that the Secretary of State will tell us quite definitely—not the answer which he gave me and which I am sure was true and which I was delighted to hear, when he said that if it did not meet performance specifications it would not be accepted, and I should hope not—but whether, if it still has these very severe handling defects, which, incidentally, will mean that we shall be very likely to lose both pilots and extremely expensive aircraft, we will delay accepting these aircraft and, incidentally, paying for them, too.
The Secretary of State remarked that there was no time to collaborate with anyone on an alternative project. There was time to collaborate with the French on the Spey/Mirage. The Government decided against that project. They may have been right or wrong, but, personally, I think that they were absolutely wrong. That aircraft would have done what we wanted at no greater expense, but without having to use dollars which we did not have, and it would have greatly strengthened our technical and political collaboration with France. I think that the day will come when we shall rue the day when we turned down this opportunity of technical collaboration with the French.
Whether it flies acceptably or not, the destructive capacity of this aircraft in one direction is assured. It is guaranteed as an effective destructor of the equilibrium of our balance of payments. That has been built into a future date. When our great Prime Minister claims that we have balanced our payments, what he has done is to postpone the imbalance, probably hoping that by then he will be out of office, as happened in 1951.

Mr. Healey: The hon. Gentleman is making a very interesting speech. He will be aware of the offset agreement and the fact that already in the first 12 years' payments we have drawn up contracts covering half the total dollar cost. I should be interested to hear his explanation of how he maintains that that is a drain on our balance of payments.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am not aware that what the right hon. Gentleman has


just said is accurate. I suspect that he is including Saudi Arabia in that and that, as is well known, has nothing to do with it. That was a complete smokescreen. What happened was that the Saudis wanted to buy an aircraft which the Americans were not prepared to sell them. They wanted to buy the Lockheed F104 and the Americans were in enough trouble having them sticking into the ground all over Europe without wanting to have them sticking into the ground all over the Arabian Peninsula as well. That is what happened in that negotiation. The Saudis wanted a different aircraft from the Americans, but the Americans at that time were not willing to sell them. All that ended with the purchase of the Lightnings, but it had nothing to do with Britain taking the F1ll, and that contention is a complete smokescreen.
We are now at the stage when we are committed to very heavy dollar payments, and the fact that those payments recede into the future does not mean that they do not have to be met. It means only that they have to be met later, and, presumably, with interest, because this is not an interest-free loan. When I put a Question to the present Foreign Secretary, who was then Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, asking what plans the Government had to increase exports to cover the extra cost, I got the fatuous reply that since trade was multilateral the question did not arise, as though hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of debts could be accumulated which in some mysterious way we did not have to pay because trade was multilateral. If that was the right hon. Gentleman's theory of economics, perhaps it explains why he is no longer Secretary of State for Economic Affairs.
I am extremely worried about when the rooks come home to roost for the payment of this aircraft. I made the point earlier that it is in some ways improbable that we will ever see both the airbus and the variable geometry aircraft. We must therefore decide which of those two to go for, lest we get neither, or lest we get one too late, by which time the world market will have gone. Unless we express our priorities in this, we shall be in grave danger of getting neither, in which case all the Government's talk about the morale of the Royal Air Force

will be revealed as complete clap-trap without the aircraft for the men to fly, for the career structure will not be there.
I want answers to my two specific questions about the cost of replacement. aircraft and about whether we will refuse delivery unless the handling characteristics of the aircraft are safe—and I mean safe, because I do not want the condition of the F104 when it was delivered to the Western German Air Force to be regarded as the condition of a safe aeroplane; it was not. We shall eventually find, having taken delivery of these aircraft that we will have taken delivery of an aircraft at far too high a price for the job it is likely to do and without having given our own economy any offsetting advantage from so doing. It may well be that had we had the TSR2 we should have still have paid more than we needed to pay per unit for the job done. That is quite possible, depending in the type of war in which we found ourselves. But at least the benefit from that expenditure would have gone into our economy instead of going out of it, and at least part of the overheads of that programme would have been shared by the civil aircraft which as a nation we are trying to export.
The conclusions of this matter have not yet been reached, but I regard it certainly with no relish and with very little confidence.

8.11 p.m.

Mr. Robert Howarth: I understood that the purpose of a censure debate arising on Supply was to be an exercise by the Opposition in probing the Government's policy, finding the weak spots and then exploiting them. The two most recent examples—today and that on child poverty not long ago— were from the Opposition's point of view particularly unfortunate choices. I thought that on both occasions the leading spokesmen for the Opposition were completely obliterated by the answers given by the Government spokesmen. The performance by my right hon. Friend today was masterful. It completely revealed the spurious nature of the charges made by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South-West (Mr. Powell).
Before I come to the main point of my speech, may I take up a number of points made by the hon. Member for


Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and take issue with him on the theme which he repeated throughout his speech in making a comparison between the ordering by Germany and other Western European nations of the F104 and our ordering of the F111. There is an important difference. It should be pointed out that the F104 has not been ordered by the United States Air Force whereas the F111 has been ordered by the United States Air Force in large numbers. In spite of what the hon. Member suggested were serious problems in the development of the F111—I will come to that point later—I put it to him that the United States Air Force, who do not usually buy a pig in a poke, have shown their confidence in the success of this aeroplane by ordering it in large quantities.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: To give the picture its full outline, will the hon. Member agree that in fact they have shown their reduced confidence by reducing the number of their orders, not by increasing them?

Mr. Howarth: As I understand it, the orders are being phased over a longer period. Until such time as they have resolved the argument about the development of the FB1 11 and the future of a supersonic strategic bomber, the numbers needed in the future are as yet unknown. But the numbers involved in the United States Air Force order for the F1ll are very considerable. I think that it is reasonable to suggest that they have confidence in the development of the aircraft. If it were as bad as the hon. Member suggests, presumably they would even have considered cancelling the project. Like us, the Americans have quite a record of cancelled aircraft projects, and there is no reason why the F111 should be sacrosanct.
In coming to the debate we need to look at the background of the Government's decision to order the F111, and to do this we need to look at the position when the Government took over in October 1964, when it was found that a most alarming situation faced the R.A.F. because of the failure of the Conservative Government to lay plans for the replacement of aircraft which were of a considerable age. The Canberra has been mentioned. About 20 years total life had

been given by that aircraft. The Hunter was a very old plane and urgently in need of replacement. The Shackleton, which has not been mentioned today, was another aircraft in respect of which the procrastination of Conservative Governments had left the R.A.F. with a very old plane. That situation has been put right by the present Government, and it is no wonder—and I confirm what was said by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey)—that the morale of the R.A.F. is very high at present. They are getting the aircraft, and the prospect is that they will continue to receive very fine aircraft to undertake the tasks being allotted to them.
But we need to understand how that situation arose and why the Government, when they came into power in 1964, found the R.A.F. in this position, operating very old aircraft with the prospect of replacement many years away. It was all based on the infamous Defence White Paper of 1957 which postulated the end of manned aircraft for the R.A.F. From this wholly disastrous basis arose all the problems about which we are still arguing. This should not surprise us, because from conception right through to operation of an aircraft we are talking of a span of from five to 15 years, so that the errors of the 1957 White Paper are still unfortunately with us.
The many decisions, tough as they were, by the present Government to hive off the uneconomic and ultra-expensive projects bequeathed to them in a last-minute ordering spree by the Conservatives in the early 1960's have received widespread support. One could have had—as I have had—a slight difference of opinion as to which projects might have been continued, but, generally speaking, the overall decision of the Government to recognise that we could not maintain the type of irresponsible programme initiated in the last few years of the Tory Government has certainly been supported by the great majority of hon. Members.
We inherited an impossible financial obligation. We followed this by instituting the Plowden Committee to look at the whole question of British aviation. We accepted that Committee's Report and have acted on many of the recommendations. One recommendation was the need in future, at least in the very


advanced projects, to go in for collaborative projects with other European countries. It is much to the credit of the present Government that a number of these are coming along at an encouraging pace. The Jaguar is a firm project which is under way. We hope that the AFVG will materialise at an early date and will be the basis for a major project for the aircraft industry both of this country and of France.
For my part, I accept that the F111K is an interim purchase until such time as the AFVG is produced. I do not think that we can place too much emphasis on the importance of the AFVG, not only for the R.A.F. and the other air forces which are likely to be purchasers of it, but also for our own aviation industry It would be exceedingly unfortunate for the British aviation industry if the AFVG did not go ahead, and I very much hope that very shortly we shall have an encouraging further report from the Government about this project. I noticed with pleasure the welcome assurance by the Minister of State for Defence that one of his principal objectives is to try to ensure that we have a viable, economic and competitive British aviation industry.
This is the policy on which we base our actions and upon which I believe this industry can certainly make a very important contribution in both technological and export terms to our economy. But the AFVG is due to come into service only from 1973 onwards, and we need an interim type from 1969 to 1973–74. So this four or five year gap is particularly important. Is anyone suggesting that we can cover the period by the continued use of the Canberras and other aircraft which are already at the end of their useful life? We need the F111 to tide us over this period. The need has been shown. I must admit that I do not like the prospect of these large orders of American aircraft, but I am prepared to accept that this is necessary provided that the AFVG is firm and comes along from 1973 and onwards.
I find the grounds for the Opposition attack typically unreal. The opening speech was quite removed from reality, and I am sure that the great majority of people outside would not be particularly interested in the arguments that

the right hon. Gentleman was deploying. At least there are those—some in this House—who question the overall defence decisions taken by the Government, and I think that their position has been made clear, but not in this case the position of the Opposition. All we had was a niggling exercise on minor points on which the Opposition spokesman did his best with an exceedingly bad brief. The reply by my right hon. Friend will, I think, prove the justice of the Government's case.
I believe that the Opposition have tried to puff up a great debate about a sum which, on the figures of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, Southwest, will be only about £12 million to £13 million. I know that this is a lot of money, but I have to admit that in aircraft terms it is not a great deal. One wonders why the Opposition have not initiated debates on their Supply Days on the Ferranti affair and the Bristol-Siddeley affair. From those two items alone the total cost to the taxpayer in excess profits is about £8 million, not far short of the sum that was being questioned by the Opposition spokesmen.
What of the Concord, a project which I happen to support, but one has to admit that its costs have escalated from £175 million to £500 million in research and development? Why no Supply Day debate on the escalation of those costs? One can only assure that the hypocrisy of the Opposition in looking round for some very weak stick with which to beat the Government knows no bounds.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: Debates on the Concord have twice been initiated by the Opposition on the Consolidated Fund. We should welcome opportunities to debate it again, and at greater length.

Mr. Howarth: That makes the point that I was trying to put, that one would have thought that, considering the amount of money involved in the escalation of the costs of the Concord, a Supply Day would have been devoted to it by the Opposition. The Opposition are complaining about a possible rise in the costs of the F111 amounting to about £12 million over the 50 aircraft. Yet they seem to be rather coy in coming forward in a debate for £325 million. I think


that somehow they have got their priorities wrong.
I wish to comment on the complaint of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West about the alleged development problems of the F111. One has to admit that these are real. But it is not unusual for an advanced military aircraft to have development problems. Speaking from memory, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Hunter had severe problems. I also understand that the Lightning had a severe problem with its engine. In the case of one of those aircraft, the firing of its guns at altitude was likely to put its engine out. All these things were eventually solved. It should not be surprising to anyone with any knowledge of the aviation industry to know that advanced military projects are bound to have problems. The F111, I have to admit, is going into completely new ground in having variable geometry. There is no comparable aircraft. That development is bound to introduce problems which could not have been foreseen.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop rose——

Mr. Howarth: I have to sit down at 8.30, and I should like to finish within the next few minutes.
On the question of development problems, I understand that even such an aircraft as the Belfast has had very severe drag problems, which have reduced its progress accordingly. One could go through a whole range of military aircraft and indicate that they have had severe development problems. It would be unusual if they did not have them.
I should like to reinforce that point by quoting from the article from which the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) rather selectively gave us a paragraph. It is an article in Flight International of 30th March, 1967. It referred to the serious problems that had been encountered with the F111. At the end of the article, it seems to be saying that the engine manufacturers were confident that they could overcome these problems, that even with the excess weight and drag—which, I understand, have very largely been offset by aerodynamic improvements and weight reduction exercises—the F111K would satisfy Royal

Air Force requirements. The article states:
Even with excess weight and drag, the F111K will satisfy R.A.F. requirements and although it would naturally like the aeroplane improved as much as possible in this respect, the British Government will not press for improvements over and above the minimum required by the R.A.F., on the grounds that Britain would certainly be invited to share the necessary development costs. The engine and intake problems are, in any case, expected to be solved by the time the aircraft enters service. While the intake troubles could worry the U.S.A.F., which wants high-altitude manoeuvreability in the FlllA's secondary role, this is not likely to worry the R.A.F. unduly, since this part of the flight envelope will be little used.
So the indications are that the problems will be cured, and that, even at worst, if there were still problems remaining when the aircraft came to be delivered to the Royal Air Force they would, in effect, meet the minimum R.A.F. requirements.
My right hon. Friend commented upon the reconnaissance role of the F111. It is in this role that we would expect to see the F111 primarily used. I regard this as an expensive but very necessary insurance policy. While we may like to think that the world is inhabited by people who are always peaceful in intent, unfortunately, as we well know to our cost, this is not the case. This is where I differ from some of my hon. Friends who are pacifists and who oppose the whole idea of defence expenditure. There are unfortunately those in this world who seem hell-bent on involving themselves and others in warlike adventures.
I recall that I was watching a television programme a month ago which showed the warlike preparations in Syria, where they are beginning to prepare in a military and psychological sense for a war which the present leaders of Syria are suggesting would be waged against the raiders. One was shown pictures of the equipment, unfortunately supplied by the Soviet Union. In these circumstances the need for such an insurance policy as a very sophisticated and long-range reconnaissance aircraft is obvious.
I recognise that it is very difficult to be able to exchange across the Floor of the House full facts and figures. It is difficult, on the grounds of security, for my right hon. Friend to be able to give all the figures which would prove his case even


more successfully than he has done. This debate has once again proved the need for a specialist, or Select Committee, which could go into the problem of what we are discussing. I am sorry that the Select Committee for Science and Technology, of which I am a member, did not decide to investigate one of these aviation projects.
If we could discuss this in Committee, in a non-partisan way, taking evidence from independent witnesses, we might be able to arrive at a more objective decision than is possible today. I hope that in the not too distant future we shall have a Committee investigating this sort of problem. In the meantime I would like to emphasise my confidence in the decisions which the Government have already taken, which I believe to be in the best interests of the nation.

8.37 p.m.

Mr. Robert Carr: When the Secretary of State opened his speech he began by saying some things about the styles of speaking of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, Southwest (Mr. Powell). I notice that he did not attempt any self-analysis of his own styles of speaking. It seems to us that he has three—he goes one better than my right hon. Friend. He has what we call his "laughing-it-off" style, and we are at least grateful that he spared us that, anyhow for most of the day. Secondly, he has his dignified, intellectually elevated, senatorial style, and I am glad to say that for much of his speech today that was the style which he adopted. Thirdly, he has his knockabout political circus style, appealing to the Left-wing to which he devoted the last part of his speech.
It seemed to us, and I think to many other hon. Members, that it was rather a Pity that he should accuse people who question or attack the F111 of doing so for malicious or commercial motives. This is not true and, if it were, it certainly applies in no mean measure to what he and his other right hon. and hon. Friends did when they criticised the TSR2, in Opposition. The truth is that it is the job of the Opposition to probe and criticise, and it does not lie in the mouths of Ministers to make accusations of that kind.
Whatever style the Secretary of State uses, he is certainly, as we saw today,

adept at dodging the point under debate. He certainly did not answer the questions and arguments, either implicit in the Motion or put forward by my right hon. Friend, which were closely related to the terms of the Motion. He took a long time about not answering them. He was very generous in giving way, for which we are always grateful, but we could not help having the rather base thought that perhaps he did not want to give his own back benchers too much time in the debate, with the probable exception of the hon. Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Robert Howarth), who will certainly be licensed next time.
There is some truth in the fear that, as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) said, the Secretary of State has been trying to put many balls in the air in order to distract the House and the country from the real trick. But he has not deceived or diverted us from the purpose of the Motion; and it is to the Motion that I want to return. I ask the Minister of State to reply directly to the terms of the Motion. It is a narrow Motion, and deliberately a narrow Motion. It does not attack the F111K as such. It attacks the Government for giving contradictory statements about the aircraft and asks for realistic statements now so that we know the full truth, or as much as security allows.
May I run over some of the points to which we want an answer and perhaps make a few new points. One question raised in the debate by more than one hon. Member is the basic question of whether we need this plane at all in the context of what now seems likely to be the Government's defence policy in the 1970s—not of what that policy seemed to be a year ago, but of what it seems likely to be now.
Although the Government have always maintained—and we do not dispute this—that the F111 could be used in European and other theatres, it is clear that the Government have been thinking about it principally in a Far Eastern context. This was made explicit by the Secretary of State for Defence and the then Foreign Secretary in last year's defence debate on 7th and 8th March. The Secretary of State said:
Essentially, most of these aircraft will be based in Singapore."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March, 1966; Vol. 725, c. 2041.]


But, in view of the apparent recent trend in Government policy, shall we have such a role in the Far East in the 1970s? Shall we by then even have a Singapore base on which
Essentially, most of these aircraft will be based"?
Is not this another example of the Government's actions and policy thinking being mutually contradictory? Is not this one of the contradictions which we seek in the Motion to have cleared up?
If the Government intend to surrender our present role in the Far East, does not the F111 become redundant or at least unnecessary? It is not that it is unusable in the European role, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) said, unless we are to have it in much larger numbers for nuclear purposes, we cannot believe that it is necessary in the European role, and none of the other European countries seems to want the F111 for a European role. Therefore, why should we want this plane unless we are to maintain our present Far Eastern role? Will the Government make their policy clear?
The Secretary of State today seemed to bring in a new thought about this matter. I think that he was suggesting that we should want the F111 in the Far East, even if we no longer had the Singapore base and similar bases, in order to support our allies in that area, particularly Australia and New Zealand. But if the real purpose of our F111s is to work in co-operation with the Australian Air Force, which will also have some F111s, should not the version of the F111 which we buy be the same as instead of different from the Australian version? Does it make sense for the Australian Air Force to have 24 F111s of one type and for us to have 50 F111s of another type if the main purpose of ours is to work with theirs? We cannot help wondering, therefore, whether this is not a bit of afterthought, of post hoc rationalisation.
I pass now to another subject, the expected performance of the F111K. Here again there have been contradictory statements. At first, we were told in paragraph 10, page 11, of the 1966 Defence Review that

The arrangements made by the United States Government with their manufacturers for their own aircraft will apply also to the aircraft we shall order and therefore will provide us with the same assurances as to specification and performance as will be insisted upon by the United States Government.
Was not that seriously misleading the House in the light of the present position?
As my right hon. Friend has reminded the House, on 16th November—about nine months after the Defence White Paper of last year—the Secretary of State said:
On the question of the operational requirement for the F111K, in all respects it is lower than the requirement for the aircraft ordered for the United States Government."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1966; Vol. 736, c. 423.]
What is it to be? Unless one is to do extraordinary gymnastics, the words of those two statements are contradictory to any reasonable outsider listening to them.
Then we have the recent speech in the United States Senate by Senator McClellan, in which he said, amongst other things:
The air force version"—
please note, the Air Force version—
is, by admission of the Department of Defence, not militarily acceptable at this time.
How does that square with the assurance which I have just quoted from last year's Defence White Paper? In view of this, how do the Government justify their action in so recently placing the order for the remaining 40 aircraft without waiting for clarification, as, for instance, the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) said that they should have done?
There is another aspect of the same matter. Hitherto, the Secretary of State for Defence in defending his decision to buy the F111 has always stoutly maintained that the troubles with the aircraft were with the naval and strategic bomber version and not with the Air Force version and has gone on to say that since we were buying what was essentially the Air Force version, we had no reason to worry about those troubles.
The Secretary of State will, no doubt, remember that he took that view strongly in, for example, a television programme last August in which he and I participated along with Senator McClellan from the United States. Is it not now clear that he misled us on that point, too? How do we square what he has


always said with the statement from Senator McClellan which I have just quoted?
Another aspect of the Fill's performance about which we have had contradictory statements is the way in which it compares with the performance of the TSR2. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans and others have given chapter and verse for some of these contradictory statements. I should like again to ask some specific questions. Can we, if possible, have specific answers? Perhaps, if we are to have specific answers, it would be as well if the Minister of State were to listen to my questions.
First, what are both the ferry and operational ranges now expected to be? If the Minister cannot give actual figures, can he give them as percentage figures of what the requirement was originally expected to be? Secondly, is it, or is it not, true that even with the present modifications, the F111 is still liable to stall or, if my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) is right, to surge when turning at high speed and high altitude?
Thirdly, does the Nav-attack system really provide the same accuracy for the delivery of conventional weapons as did the TSR2's? Not simply does it give the basic minimum requirements, but does it give the same accuracy for the delivery of conventional weapons as the TSR2?
Fourthly, can we be assured that the latest avionic systems in the F111K really provide the TSR2 standard of terrain following—again not just the minimum requirements, but is it as good in this respect as the TSR2?
Another point which has come out today, is that of the unit cost. Here we have these two aspects, the ceiling price for the basic plane and the ceiling price for the R.A.F. modification of it. This is a point on which we have not yet received a satisfactory answer, because it has always been emphasised by the Government that the figure of £2·1 million was a maximum. We have been told that we might get it for less but that on no account should we have to pay more. At no point has any mention been made, until it slipped out in another place a few weeks ago, that there was any question of having to take into account United States money inflation. We now know that

that is so. What we still do not know is the nature of the formula which has been used. My right hon. Friend specifically asked that question and, presumably, the Secretary of State specifically ignored it. May we press it again?
What is the nature of the clause in the contract which provides for the automatic changes in price according to the figure of inflation? Is it a standard 3 per cent. per year, as is the case with the Phantom, or is it an amount which is to be decided at periodic intervals by reference to some economic index in the United States? Is the price of the modification also subject to automatic uplift according to United States money inflation? Can we please be told that as well? Can we also be told the answer to another question which we have asked but which so far has been ignored, namely, why it was that the Secretary of State placed the final order for the remaining 40 of these planes without first having obtained an agreement about the ceiling price?
May I remind the Government once again that, as late as 1st March, the Secretary of State told the House categorically that no contract would be placed until such a ceiling price had been agreed. What happened between 1st March and 1st April, and why did he not keep his promise?
I turn quickly to another point about costs, namely the total programme costs. The Secretary of State gave us lots of figures about the total programme costs, many of them, conveniently for him, on quite a new basis which makes comparison impossible, at least at short notice. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing) and others of my hon. Friends pointed out that the basis seemed to be a pretty funny one, at least on first hearing.
One thing which I understood from it is that the dollar cost of the 10-year programme had risen by some £10 million. I understood that the overall cost of the 10-year programme had gone up from £280 million to £336 million but that, within that increase of £56 million, only £10 million was dollar cost. If I have that right, we are faced with a dollar cost of £270 million compared with £260 million originally given to the House; that is, about 750 million dollars instead of 725 million dollars. We should like


to know to what extent the estimated total programme costs which we have now been given make allowance for the substantial modifications to the F111 which are now known to be necessary.
The Secretary of State told us that it contained a contingency allowance. We should like to know the sort of order of contingency allowance and if we can be reasonably sure that it will be adequate. To take one example, is it or is it not a fact that the original engines with which the planes will be supplied will cost about 450,000 dollars each, while the spare engines which will have to be bought as replacements during the 10-year period are likely to cost at least 610,000 dollars or possibly as much as 790,000 dollars each? If we get much escalation of that kind, there will have to be a big contingency allowance in the 10-year dollar costs programme to take account of it.
I come to another important aspect, namely, the terms of the basic contract. The House was told that one of the critical factors in favour of the F111 was the date when we could receive delivery. This was clearly one of the reasons given for the cancellation of the TSR2—perhaps not the main reason, but certainly one of them. On 4th March, 1965, the Prime Minister told the House that the TSR2 could not be in service until 1968 at the earliest, and in this year's Defence White Paper we were informed:
We plan to have formed the first squadron of F111Ks in 1969.
That will be a year later than the TSR2 would have come into service, and apparently that was thought to be too late.
The Secretary of State told us this afternoon that he expects the delivery schedule for the first 10 to be kept, except for the first one which, we understand, will be somewhat delayed at our request. But what about the delivery schedule for the remaining 40? If there are such major modifications to be made as we hear about, some set-back in delivery is, to say the least, not impossible. One must, therefore, ask whether the Government insisted on the inclusion in the contract for the purchase of these planes of a penalty clause for late delivery. If they did not, why not?
Did the Government also insist on the insertion of a penalty clause if the planes as delivered fail to match up to their original specification? If not, why not? As we know, the Government are being extremely tough in insisting on penalty clauses applying to British sub-contractors for this and other planes which we are buying from the United States. If—and we agree that this should be done—they are insisting on penalty clauses for British sub-contractors, we must demand that the Government include similar penalty clauses in their contracts with the American Government and American companies. We must be told whether the Government have done this.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton raised the question of the terms of the original contract in respect of any replacement aircraft that may be needed. I am not referring to any possible future large buy but to the aircraft we might have to buy because some of our original 50 may unfortunately go out of service through crashes or other reasons. Will such replacement aircraft be subject to the same ceiling?
Another important matter which arose in the course of an exchange between the Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West was where exactly we stand on the production line with this aircraft; in other words, whether we are to be the guinea-pigs. If we are, then with a plane of this kind it seems likely that it will be an expensive process. If we are not, and if we are buying the planes off the peg, can we be given an idea of how many production planes there will be and which countries will be getting them coming off the line ahead of us?
I will make two points in conclusion. The first is about payment for these planes. We have understood from the beginning of this affair that the payment of the dollar content is to be by credit and the House has already passed legislation in that connection. We want to know whether that line of credit will be increased to take account of the increase in dollar costs which we already know or which may subsequently arise. Will the line of credit be increased or will we have to pay any extra dollar cost in cash, as it were?
Secondly, closely linked with the payment for these planes and the economic


burden on our balance of payments was the claim by the Government that the total dollar cost would be fully covered by their much vaunted dollar offset agreement. We were told in the defence debate last year by the then Minister of Aviation that 325 million dollars would be provided by direct sales of equipment to the United States and another four hundred million dollars by sales to third parties. Will that total dollar offset be increased in line with American money inflation? Does the dollar offset agreement make that sort of allowance? If it does, how much is in the direct category and how much in the third-country category?
As to the third-country category, I would ask particularly about the Saudi Arabian deal. The Minister of State must be very conscious of that deal. Never has a Minister been so blatantly carted by a senior colleague as the Minister of State was carted over the Saudi Arabian deal. He played a prominent part in obtaining the Saudi Arabian order before the F111 decision was taken, and in December, 1965 he assured the House that there was no connection of any kind between the Saudi Arabian order of which he was telling us and the F1ll deal. We subsequently discovered to the contrary.
What is the position now? In May, 1966, the Secretary of State told us that the Saudi Arabian deal will be worth about £100 million, or 280 million dollars, out of the third-country section of the offset agreement. On that occasion he said:
… it will leave a very substantial amount still to be covered by further collaborative sales to third countries."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th May, 1966; Vol. 728, c. 477.]
Is that still really the case, or has the Saudi Arabian deal now absorbed all the third-country element in the dollar offset agreement? This order, which we got long before we ever placed the F111 order and which the Minister of State told us had no connection with it—was that statement another piece of deception of the House and of the country?
It is interesting to see hon. Members opposite laughing at these questions. I suppose that, in a sense, the Secretary of State and others of his right hon. and hon. Friends can laugh at the moment, because they have bought all these planes

on the never-never system, and it will not be they individually, or their Government, who will have to pick up the bill, but us. I suppose, therefore, that they can laugh at the moment.
For the last two and a half years we have lived in an Alice-in-Wonderland world of defence policy. We have had all the up-to-date jargon—yes, that is there all right. Ministers clearly took time off to go to one-day schools of management studies and tried to blind us all with science. But what have we had in practice? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West has rightly pointed out in a series of debates, we have had a lot of decisions taken ad hoc without reference to any comprehensive framework of policy. In fact, as the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) said earlier, we have had the Prime Minister's favourite game of keeping all the options open, under a smokescreen of scientific jargon.
Nowhere is that more clear than in the Government's aircraft programme. They cancelled the TSR2, and they are now seeking to replace it with two planes—the F111 and the AFVG. As was said by the hon. Member for Coventry, North, the F111 is doubtful as to performance and uncertain as to role. The AFVG is, alas, still very much in doubt. We hope that these doubts can be removed, but we cannot burke the fact that the doubts are still very much there.
In spite of the specious figure given by the Secretary of State earlier, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) that even if both of these planes come off, the combined cost of the F111 purchase and programme and the AFVG development and purchase programme, plus the frustrated expenditure on the TSR2, will at the end of the day be at least as great as, if not greater than, the cost had the Government gone ahead with the TSR2.
If either the F111 or the AFVG do not come off, what then? What do the Government think will happen then in cost and defence capability? Do we buy more F111s? If so, at what price? That is a pretty gloomy prospect on the horizon. Let us hope that it is not one of those small clouds that grow into a big cloud. If not that, and if anything happens to the AFVG, do We


make an entirely British variable geometry plane and, if we do, at what cost?
This debate has exposed, as it was meant to expose, a spoof by the Government. The right hon. Gentleman can laugh now, but I fear that it will eventually be exposed as a spoof which has been attempted to cover up a monstrous folly.

9.0 p.m.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Technology (Mr. John Stonehouse): At the end of this debate I am very surprised indeed that the Opposition should have wasted one of their Supply Days to put down a Motion of this character. It reveals what a very weak case they have against the Government and how little of a case they have against my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, if it is only on this very narrow point that they set up this great attack on my right hon. Friend. As the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) said in his excellent and short intervention, my right hon. Friend has been bold and has done many good things. He has done excellent service to the House and to the country today by his devastatingly brilliant speech in which he absolutely demolished the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell).
The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West is a specialist in pedantic hair-splitting. He combines this with a singular love of simple English. He will never call a spade a spade if he can call it a manually operated excavator. Today he has added to his skill a profound grasp of faulty economics. We should be grateful to him for one thing. At least he has reduced the level of his attack on the F111 target. In an attack on 26th April last year he called the F111 deal "hollow". He said:
It is hollow in its financial arrangements. It is hollow in its military reasoning."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th April, 1966; Vol. 727, c. 657.]
It is significant that the right hon. Gentleman did not repeat those allegations today because, of course, such allegations cannot possibly be justified and the speech of my right hon. Friend has shown beyond any doubt what an ex-

cellent arrangement the F111 contract is and how it meets the requirements of the R.A.F.
The right hon. Gentleman confined his attack to quibbling about details. He did not attempt to spell out any alternative policies. Perhaps he is intelligent enough to realise that his right hon. Friends— he was not in a Department directly responsible—left some very sinister skeletons in the cupboard for us to find. As my right hon. Friend has pointed out only too clearly the escalation in the TSR2 costs was never revealed by hon. Members opposite. It was left for my right hon. Friend to pick out all the sinister facts.
There have been a number of questions raised during the debate and I shall do my best to reply to them. First, the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) asked about the Saudi Arabian deal and the offset arrangements. I am grateful to him for what he said about the part I played in that particular deal. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. In my talks in the United States with Mr. Henry Kuss, when I secured the agreement of the Americans to a joint proposal being made to the Saudis, there was no reference to, or any discussion on, any proposed F111 buy. But it was reasonable, bearing in mind the other expenditure of the United States in this country for its forces, for the Saudi Arabian deal to be included in the offset arrangement for third party sales.
The right hon. Gentleman asked specifically whether there was allowance for other sales to take place. Of course there is. We hope to have several more of these collaborative deals. The Saudi deal is just an example of what we can achieve in co-operation with our American friends. A deal of this character can open up wider opportunities which are not subject to the offset arrangements. We can have, and we have already had, deals in Saudi Arabia which are additional to the offset arrangement but which we would never have got if we had not had this joint Anglo-American proposal to the Saudis. They are not included in the offset arrangement.

Mr. R. Carr: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that these additions to our original contract are specifically excluded from the dollar offset calculations?

Mr. Stonehouse: There are additions. I am not authorised to give the details of these today, but I can assure the House that there are additions, and very substantial ones indeed, which are not included in the offset arrangements.
I am sure that the House will agree that when we achieve a substantial order of this character, the biggest single order which we have achieved in our history, it provides an umbrella for other of our manufacturers and exporters to get into this market and sell other products. This is exactly what we are doing. It has also established in the Middle East a better climate for our exporters generally, and I believe that in other countries substantial successes will be achieved as a result of this better climate being established.

Mr. Edelman: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made a great show earlier in the day of the fact that all his policies were tending towards disarmament. How does my hon. Friend square that with his vigorous attempts to expand the sales of arms to the Middle East?

Mr. Storehouse: There is no doubt that these countries are buying arms from somewhere. It is only right that we should give opportunities to our industrialists to sell in this part of the world as well. [Laughter.] I cannot understand why right hon. Members opposite laugh at this, as so many of them have applauded such attempts to secure these sales. We are not considering only military sales here. Opportunities have been opened up for exports of civil products as well.
The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West asked whether the wage/material escalation clause in the agreement with the United States related to the F111 was calculated by a general formula or whether it was specifically related to the contractor's expenditure on the F111 programme itself. The escalation clause applies to the expenditure of the contractor. This is also a clear answer to the right hon. Member for Mitcham. It would be a mistake, though, for right hon. Members opposite to overestimate the importance and effect of the escalation clause. This is an inescapable condition in a long-term contract of this character. Wages and materials price

increases are bound to have applied in any such contract, but any calculations of this character could be only marginal.

Mr. Powell: Does the hon. Gentleman man estimate that this will result in a higher or a lower escalation than the 3 per cent. per annum agreement applying to the Phantom?

Mr. Stonehouse: I estimate that it will be about the same.
The right hon. Gentleman referred also to the strengthened undercarriage and asked why we had done this. The fact that we have adopted this undercarriage has been known to the House for a long time. The United States Strategic Air Command wants the strengthened undercarriage for its version of the aircraft, the FB1 11, and it was given to us last year as an option. We decided to take advantage of the possibility because it enables the Royal Air Force to make the maximum use of the aircraft's capabilities from semi-prepared airfields to take off with bigger bomb loads.
Several questions were raised by the right hon. Member for Mitcham in comparing the performance of the F111 with the proposed performance of the TSR2. First, the ferry range is 20 per cent, better than the ferry range of the TSR2. Second, the question of engine surging: as my right hon. Friend has said, there are still engine matching problems which, we believe, will be solved in the United States because of the tremendous resources being put behind the programme there, but we are assured that the achievement of the F111 development so far meets the basic and minimum requirements of the Royal Air Force.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the Nav-attack system. This is fully equivalent to that specified for the TSR2. Next, he asked about the terrain-following capability. This equipment has already been functioning very successfully throughout the development programme, and its performance is equivalent to, and in some respects better than, that specified for the TSR2.
There is no doubt that in the F111 we are obtaining an aircraft for the R.A.F. which meets its needs and requirements in all major respects. A further advantage which the House will recognise is that, as this aircraft is to go into squadron


service in both America and Australia before the first deliveries to the R.A.F. take place, we shall be more than satisfied that the development problems of the aircraft are solved before the Royal Air Force is flying it.
Furthermore, the great advantage of this agreement as against the TSR2 arrangement is that we have here a ceiling price, subject, of course, to an escalation clause, which will give us a final basic cost of £2½ million per aircraft. The arrangement for the TSR2 was quite dissimilar because the commitment was unlimited. Although we have estimated what the cost of developing and producing the TSR2 might have been, it could have been very much more even than that. For the F111, however, we have a unique agreement with the United States, the best type of agreement for purchasing equipment from the United States that this country has ever achieved. If right hon. Gentlemen opposite, when they started negotiating for buying equipment from the United States, had concentrated their attention on obtaining this type of agreement, perhaps the Exchequer would have been saved a great deal of money and should have saved a great deal of time as well.

Mr. Lubbock: Whatever may be said now, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force, who is sitting on the Front Bench beside the hon. Gentleman, said on 14th March:
The cost of the F111 is a fixed-cost price of £2·1 million".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th March, 1967; Vol. 743, c. 245.]
Does not that give the impression that there was no adjustment to be made for increasing costs of wages and materials and the rest?

Mr. Stonehouse: The right hon. Member for Mitcham made play of that point, but all the references here were to the basic unit cost, and it has been made quite clear that there were additions to the basic unit price. I do not think that the House can deny that the position has been made absolutely clear to it, and that we were aiming to obtain an aircraft at £2½ million at 1965 prices which will entirely meet the points that have been made by my right hon. Friend in past months. The third point about the agreement which I am sure the House will

applaud is that it is cost effective. Whereas the TSR2 was an extraordinarily expensive programme, in this one we have, as my right hon. Friend said, a saving over 15 years of £700 million.
Those three points demonstrate the value of the F111 contract. Of course, hon. Members may suggest that there are disadvantages in the arrangement. They may suggest that it may adversely affect the United Kingdom aircraft industry, which is one of the points the right hon. Member for Mitcham put forward in a speech in December, 1965, to which I shall refer in a few minutes.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Could the Minister tell us just how much he has put in the figure of £700 million for 15 years for the AFVG production cost and unit cost?

Mr. Stonehouse: I think that it would be unwise to be drawn on specific figures. But, as my right hon. Friend said, the total research and development cost will be about £150 million, and there will be an addition to that of an amount for the production of these aircraft. [HON. MEMBERS: "How much?"] I am not in a position to reveal that, as the hon. Gentleman knows only too well. He asked for a specific figure, but when he was one of the Ministers responsible when his party were in power his Government never provided figures of that character, and so hon. Members opposite are not entitled to ask for them now.
The aircraft industry in Britain is in a stronger position now than it has been in for many years.

Mr. R. Carr: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the question of contracts, could he tell us about the penalty clauses in the United States contract, about which I particularly asked, and also explain why, contrary to what was said on 1st March, the order was made before the ceiling price had been agreed?

Mr. Stonehouse: There is no question of Her Majesty's Government accepting the delivery of these aircraft unless they are up to our requirements. My right hon. Friend has made that clear. We still have to negotiate the details of the supplemental ceiling price, but I am sure that it will provide for a figure that will be fully consistent with the assurances


that have been provided to the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the penalty clauses?"] The question of penalty clauses does not arise, because the assurances we have had on the delivery of these aircraft fully assure us that our requirements will be met. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]
The questions of doubt about the buying of the F111 and the cancellation of the TSR2 are related to their effect on the British aircraft industry, but the British aircraft industry is now in a stronger state than it has been in for many years. If we look at any of the vital statistics, the House will agree that that is true. As hon. Members who are in contact with the aircraft industry are only too well aware, even the leaders in the industry are recognising the great strength it has achieved in the past year or so. The total export figure has increased from £107 million in 1964 to £153 million in 1965, and to no less than £229 million in 1966, a figure of which we can really be proud. One of the most significant facts in the total output figures of the industry in 1966 is that our production of home military aircraft has reduced from the figure of £330 million in 1965 to £315 million in 1966, but our production of civil and export aircraft has increased from £233 million in 1965 to £275 million in 1966. This is the direction we want the British aircraft industry to go in meeting civil demand and export demand, and not to chase after the vain glorious objective of right hon. and hon. Members opposite of having an independent military aircraft production.

Sir A. V. Harvey: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the exports of over £200 million achieved by the industry in 1966. What percentage of those orders were placed after the present Government came to power?

Mr. Stonehouse: I cannot give the figures off the cuff. But right hon. and hon. Members opposite, including the hon. Gentleman himself, know very well that many of the orders for aircraft exported in 1966 were obtained in 1965, including exports to the Middle East and the United States. They know also that the part that the Government have been playing in assisting the development of the aircraft industry's export programme

has been extremely substantial. Hon. Members in touch with the industry know it only too well because they have applauded what we have done.
I will give two examples. We have increased the credit terms for jet aircraft to ten years. This has assisted the export of the BAC111, which is doing extremely well, and the British Aircraft Corporation itself has acknowledged the assistance the Government have given.
We have made a new decision which my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has authorised me to announce tonight. It is in relation to the turbo-prop aircraft of the Hawker Siddeley 748 and the Handley Page Herald type. Credit terms are being extended from five to eight years, which will open up a wonderful opportunity for the producers of this type of aircraft. We estimate that the market for these aircraft is about 700 with a total value of about £200 million. So the potential here is very considerable for our aircraft producers. These are only two examples of the assistance the Government are giving to our aircraft exports in helping to achieve the sort of figures I have given.
Furthermore, from right hon. and hon. Members opposite, when the TSR2 was cancelled, we had allegations that the industry was being truncated and undermined. In fact, the number employed in the industry on average in 1966 was 257,000 as against 268,000 in 1964, and the latest available figure—the February figure—is 262,000. This does not sound to me like a truncated and debilitated industry. The industry is strong. It is successful. It is making a very substantial contribution to the British export drive, but if we had carried on with the TSR2 we would not have been able to achieve the same figures in export performance.
It is significant to note that the work load of the industry, according to the confidential returns at our disposal, shows that there is now more work available than there was at the end of 1964. All these statistics show that the industry is not undermined and is not unsuccessful. With the guidance of the Government, it is doing an extremely good job for Britain.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Stonehouse: I have very little time.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is too much noise from the Opposition and too much noise from the Government side.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: On a point of order. Will the hon. Gentleman say what relation this has to the Motion? I have been here throughout the debate and the hon. Gentleman is not answering the questions which have been put to him.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Stonehouse: The relevance to the Motion is very important. When the right hon. Member for Mitcham spoke on 13th December, 1965, he said that if the Government decided to choose the F1ll there would be a number of more or less opposite disadvantages. He went on:
First, it would leave a gaping void in the order load of the British industry.
The right hon. Gentleman was absolutely wrong about that.
Secondly, it would, in our view, strike a serious blow to confidence in Europe in the fruitfulness of co-operation with this country in aircraft …".
That, of course, was absolute rubbish. We have a very successful agreement for producing the Jaguar with the French, and the helicopter programme is going extremely well. We are also discussing with them in detail the AFVG programme, which we are confident will be a great success. Despite the escalation in costs compared with the estimates which right hon. Gentlemen opposite gave to the House, Concord is going extremely well. Furthermore, Europeans have come to us with proposals for collaboration, for instance, with the airbus, which show that they have confidence about co-operating with us, and we hope to make that confidence a reality in practical co-operation.
The right hon. Gentleman also said:
Thirdly … it would obviously add enormously to our balance of payments problems

…".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th December, 1965; Vol. 722, c. 980.]

That, of course, was utterly incorrect. The balance of payments cost of the F111 is being covered by the offset agreement. We have the offset on third country sales and we have the offset on sales to the United States which right hon. Gentlemen opposite, for instance, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West on 7th March, dismiss. The offset arrangements for sales to the United States are going extremely well. We have already achieved orders to the value of 130 million dollars in sales to the United States.

But it is not only a matter of meeting the Fl11 offset costs, because for the first time our manufacturers are, for instance, on the head-up display equipment, getting a foot in the door in the United States. They are working out collaborative programmes with American producers to meet the requirements of the Department of Defence and they are confident that even after the F111 offset agreement has been completely finalised and concluded, these arrangements will stand the test of time. This entry into the American industry could have very substantial and beneficial effects for producers of components in Britain.

We have therefore already achieved a substantial part of the offset arrangements in direct sales to the United States and we are currently considering with the United States Department of Defense several other proposals, including the BAC111, the HS125 and the Handley-Page Jet Stream and we hope that one or two of these will be acceptable to the United States.

I hope that the House will agree that this is a very ill-advised Motion. My right hon. Friend has completely abolished any case which the Opposition may have had and so we throw back into their faces their false argument, their false facts and their false philosophy on which the Motion was based, and with confidence I ask the House to reject it.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 234, Noes 292.

Division No. 329.]
AYES
[9.30 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Baker, W. H. K.
Bell, Ronald


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Balniel, Lord
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)


Astor, John
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Batsford, Brian
Berry, Hn. Anthony


Awdry, Daniel
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Biffen, John




Biggs-Davison, John
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Murton, Oscar


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Gurden, Harold
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Black, Sir Cyril
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Neave, Airey


Blaker, Peter
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Body, Richard
Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Nott, John


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Onslow, Cranley


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Braine, Bernard
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Brewis, John
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col. Sir Walter
Hastings, Stephen
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hawkins, Paul
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hay, John
Pardoe, John


Bryan, Paul
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Buchanan Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Peel, John


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Heseltine, Michael
Percival, Ian


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hill, J. E. B.
Peyton, John


Burden, F. A.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Campbell, Gordon
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Pink, R. Bonner


Carlisle, Mark
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Pounder, Rafton


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Holland, Philip
Powell, Rt. Hn, J. Enoch


Cary, Sir Robert
Hooson, Emlyn
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Channon, H. P. G.
Hordern, Peter
Prior, J. M. L.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hunt, John
Pym, Francis


Clark, Henry
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Clegg, Walter
Iremonger, T. L.
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Cooke, Robert
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Cordle, John
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Ridsdale, Julian


Corfield, F. V.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Costain, A. P.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Robson Brown, Sir William


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Crawley, Aidan
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Crouch, David
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Royle, Anthony


Crowder, F. P.
Kershaw, Anthony
Russell, Sir Ronald


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Kimball, Marcus
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Currie, G. B. H.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kirk, Peter
Scott, Nicholas


Dance, James
Kitson, Timothy
Sharpies, Richard


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Lambton, Viscount
Sinclair, Sir George


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Smith, John


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Stainton, Keith


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Stodart, Anthony


Doughty, Charles
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoff rey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Drayson, G. B.
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Tapsell, Peter


du Cann, Rt, Hn. Edward
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Eden, Sir John
Longden, Gilbert
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Loveys, W. H.
Teeling, Sir William


Errington, Sir Eric
Lubbock, Eric
Temple, John M.


Eyre, Reginald
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Farr, John
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Tilney, John


Fisher, Nigel
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McMaster, Stanley
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Fortescue, Tim
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Foster, Sir John
Maddan, Martin
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Maginnis, John E.
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Gibson-Watt, David
Marten, Neil
Walters, Dennis


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maude, Angus
Ward, Dame Irene


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Webster, David


Glover, Sir Douglas
Mawby, Ray
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Glyn, Sir Richard
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Goodhart, Philip
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Goodhew, Victor
Miscampbell, Norman
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Gower, Raymond
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Woodnutt, Mark


Grant, Anthony
Monro, Hector
Wylie, N. R.


Grant-Ferris, R.
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Younger, Hn. George


Gresham Cooke, R.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)



Grieve, Percy
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Mr. R. W. Elliott and Mr. More.




NOES


Albu, Austen
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Bence, Cyril


Alldritt, Walter
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood


Anderson, Donald
Bagler, Gordon A. T.
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)


Archer, Peter
Barnes, Michael
Binns, John


Armstrong, Ernest
Barnett, Joel
Bishop, E. S.


Ashley, Jack
Beaney, Alan
Blackburn, F.




Blenkinsop, Arthur
Harper, Joseph
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Booth, Albert
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Murray, Albert


Boston, Terence
Haseldine, Norman
Newens, Stan


Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert
Hattersley, Roy
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Boyden, James
Hazell, Bert
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip(Derby, S.)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Oakes, Gordon


Bradley, Tom
Heffer, Eric S.
Ogden, Eric


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Henig, Stanley
O'Malley, Brian


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Oram, Albert E.


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Hilton, W. S.
Orbach, Maurice


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W)
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Orme, Stanley


Brown, R. w. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hooley, Frank
Oswald, Thomas


Buchan, Norman
Horner, John
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Paget, R. T.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Palmer, Arthur


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Cant, R. B.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Park, Trevor


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Howie, W.
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Huckfield, L.
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Chapman, Donald
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pavitt, Laurence


Coe, Denis
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Concannon, J. D.
Hunter, Adam
Pentland, Norman


Conlan, Bernard
Hynd, John
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Cronin, John
Janner, Sir Barnett
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Price, William (Rugby)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras, S.)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Randall, Harry


Dalyell, Tam
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Rankin, John


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Rees, Merlyn


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Reynolds, G. W.


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Richard, Ivor


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jones, T. A. (Rhondda West)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Kelley, Richard
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Kenyon, Clifford
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


de Freitas, Rt. Hon. Sir Geoffrey
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Delargy, Hugh
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth(St.P'c'as)


Dell, Edmund
Lawson, George
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Dempsey, James
Leadbitter, Ted
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Ledger, Ron
Roebuck, Roy


Dobson, Ray
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Doig, Peter
Lee, John (Reading)
Rose, Paul


Driberg, Tom
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Dunnett, Jack
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lipton, Marcus
Ryan, John


Eadie, Alex
Lomas, Kenneth
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Edelman, Maurice
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Sheldon, Robert


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford. E.)
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Ellis, John
McBride, Neil
Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton, N. E.)


English, Michael
MacColl, James
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Ennals, David
MacDermot, Niall
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Ensor, David
Macdonald, A. H.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. w.)
McGuire, Michael
Skeffington, Arthur


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Slater, Joseph


Faulds, Andrew
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Snow, Julian


Finch, Harold
Mackintosh, John P.
Spriggs, Leslie


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Stonehouse, John


Floud, Bernard
McNamara, J. Kevin
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Macpherson, Malcolm
Swain, Thomas


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Swingler, Stephen


Ford, Ben
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Symonds, J. B.


Forrester, John
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Taverne, Dick


Fowler, Gerry
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Freeson, Reginald
Manuel, Archie
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mapp, Charles
Thornton, Ernest


Gardner, Tony
Marquand, David
Tinn, James


Garrett, W. E.
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Tomney, Frank


Ginsburg, David
Mason, Roy
Tuck, Raphael


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mayhew, Christopher
Urwin, T. W.


Gourlay, Harry
Mellish, Robert
Vartey, Eric G.


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mendelson, J. J.
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Gregory, Arnold
Mikardo, Ian
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Millan, Bruce
Wallace, George


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Molloy, William
Watkins, David (Consett)


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Moonman, Eric
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Wellbeloved, James


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Whitaker, Ben


Hamling, William
Morris, John (Aberavon)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Hannan, William
Moyle, Roland
Whitlock, William




Wigg, Rt. Hn. George
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Woof, Robert


Wilkins, w. A.
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Yates, Victor


Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)



Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Winnick, David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Mr. Grey and Mr. Fitch.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Motion relating to Finance Bills may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Healey.]

FINANCE BILLS

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [26th April],
That, during the remainder of the Session, where, in respect of a bill for imposing, renewing, varying or repealing any charge upon the people, either—

(a) Mr. Speaker has been informed that no general agreement to allot a specified number of days or portions of days to the consideration of the Bill in Committee or on report has been reached, or
(b) any general agreement of which Mr. Speaker has been informed is, in the opinion of a Minister of the Crown, working ineffectively,
a motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown that the Business Committee shall make recommendations to the House as to the number of days or portions of days to be allotted to the consideration of the bill in committee, on report or on third reading, and as to the time by which proceedings on any parts into which they may divide the bill shall be brought to a conclusion in committee or on report and any further recommendations which may in their opinion be necessary to ensure the bringing to a conclusion of the proceedings on the parts of the bill allotted to those days or portions of days; and the question on such a motion shall be put not more than two hours after the commencement of proceedings thereon;
That for the purposes of this Order the Business Committee shall consist of the Chairmen's Panel together with not more than five other Members to be nominated by Mr. Speaker:
That, when the Business Committee shall have reported the resolution or resolutions containing their recommendations to the House, the provisions of sub-paragraph (c) of Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) shall apply to the proceedings on any motions for the consideration of such report and on the consideration of the said report:—

Question again proposed.

Mr. Speaker: I believe that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett) was in possession of the House.

9.43 p.m.

Dr. Reginald Bennett: As I was saying, when I was bluntly interrupted on the previous occasion, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House argues cogently and closely, but not always from the soundest of premises. Although he was at his most persuasive last Wednesday, he put up some thoroughly bad propositions. At the moment of interruption—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order, will hon. Gentlemen leave the Chamber quietly?

Dr. Bennett: At the moment of interruption, I was referring to his words in c. 1517:
We agreed that we should have voluntary agreements. We are both agreed that that would make progress. That is all agreed between the two sides.
Later at c. 1519 he said:
… one of the ways of getting good sense … was to get agreement before the Bill was discussed and to get it firmly so that we would know where we were."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th April, 1967; Vol. 745, c. 1517–19.]
In my view, this is to hand over the Opposition, literally gagged and morally bound, to the mercies of the Government. This would lead to two abuses. First, it would lead to an increase, if that were possible, in Ministerial arrogance or intransigence, or even in getting away with ignorance. Ministers know that they cannot get away with this now, because if they try—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is impossible for an hon. Gentleman to address the House against a background of sustained conversations.

Dr. Bennett: Thank you, Mr. Speaker: If there is a predetermined timetable, it is possible for Ministers to stonewall until the time runs out. I believe that the Opposition must have a sanction against Ministers who do this.
My second objection is that it is possible, once a timetable has been imposed, for the Opposition largely to be shut out by Government back benchers. My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) mentioned filibustering the other day by Government back benchers. Even on Wednesday morning sittings the Government side of the House consumed


more time than the Opposition in discussing this Guillotine Motion. That is nothing to what they would do if the proceedings were gagged. All that would be necessary would be for the Patronage Secretary to say, "O.K., boys—move in", or just remove any natural curb which we know commonly exists on Government back benchers and then all the calculations are torpedoed, whether by design or by the natural prolixity of the Socialists.

Sir Douglas Glover: Would my hon. Friend give way?

Dr. Bennett: Certainly.

Sir D. Glover: In the debate which has just finished, Members on the Government side of the House took over 45 minutes more than the Opposition.

Dr. Bennett: That is one of the intentions or ideas which may underline the introduction of this Motion by the Government.
The Leader of the House recognises this possibility. On Wednesday he said:
If Government back benchers were to abuse the rights which they would obtain via this sanction, they would more effectively destroy this than any reserve powers. If Government back benchers were to filibuster on the ground that they now have the chance, they would destroy this agreement in a year, and the Opposition—rightly so—would not give it to us again."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th April, 1967; Vol. 745, c. 1520.]
That is absolutely right.
This sort of agreement which gives carte blanche is fatal. Therefore, I cannot accept it. An agreed timetable can be fixed only just before the Amendments are discussed and after all the Amendments and new Clauses have been handed in. Within 24 hours of the debate is the earliest at which an agreed timetable can be fixed. This is approximately the state of affairs in the agreed ad hoc arrangements which actually do take place nowadays. Once the timetable had been accepted, it would govern the selection rather than the selection governing the timetable. This is the reverse of what is desirable.
The Motion would be infinitely more acceptable if the Amendments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) were accepted. If they were not accepted, the

Motion would be hopeless. If we were to accept this Motion I believe that we would betray our colleagues, and, furthermore, we would betray future Oppositions. There are many brash young men opposite, no doubt, who have been here a year who would like to see us shut out. They will not be here at the time of the next Government. Their seats are already forfeit. It is their survivors who will be the sufferers from their high-handedness.
No doubt the right hon. Gentleman intends to use his steamroller to force the Motion upon us, although he said on Wednesday:
I would not vote for this Motion if I thought that in any way it reduced the ultimate power of the Opposition."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th April 1967; Vol. 745, c. 1518.]
Surely the right hon. Gentleman can see that it grossly reduces our power. I ask him to live up to his word. I somehow do not believe that he will. He can best be described as being like the character of Lewis Carroll in the Mouse's Tale:
' I'll be judge, I'll be jury ', said cunning old Fury;
'I'll try the whole cause, and condemn you to death.'

9.50 p.m.

Mr. John Peyton: I am extremely glad to have caught your eye, Mr. Speaker. I sought to do so the other day, but my contribution to the debate was somewhat postponed by what I can only describe as a flush of Privy Councillors, who, having rights that I do not enjoy, preceded me in the discussion.
I want ot say how impressed I was the other day by the Leader of the House, who was at his most polite and, therefore, his most persuasive and his most urbane. The threat in what he had to say appeared only rather late on in his speech. I want to make it absolutely clear that I do not personally fancy at all this kind of dilettante dabbling with our procedures which are designed for certain purposes. We have the example of the morning sittings, which have become semi-secret affairs from which large numbers of the public who would like to get into the Gallery are excluded because of staff difficulties. The whole atmosphere of those morning sittings is one which we should not encourage.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman): I hope that the hon. Member will not say that, because I have frequently asked the Serjeant at Arms for the facts, and I have had to repeat more than once that although there have been occasions in the mornings—perhaps one or two—when some of the public have been excluded, on practically every morning there is plenty of room. I think that it would deter people from coming in if the impression were to be given that there was not room in the morning for those of the public who wished to attend.

Mr. Peyton: I do not want to go on with it, but there is a genuine difference of opinion that many people are not able to get in while there are empty seats in the Gallery.

Mr. Crossman: Mr. Crossman rose ——

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a digression from the debate. I hope that it will not be pursued.

Mr. Crossman: It is important, when statements are made about the situation in the Gallery, to make it clear that the Serjeant at Arms is prepared to give to the hon. Member the precise figures for any morning to indicate whether he is right or wrong. I hope that he will look at them.

Mr. Peyton: If the right hon. Gentleman says that, of course I will look at the figures with great pleasure.
The other day, the right hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that in putting forward the Motion the Government were making a big concession. Then he produced the argument that we should seek to make a better impression outside. I am sure that this is desirable. Equally, however, I do not believe that our procedure should be entirely dominated by what the public feel about any manoeuvre that is undertaken here.
The right hon. Gentleman also referred to this as simply a sessional experiment. I believe that this is the worst year in which to conduct a sessional experiment. We have for once a fairly innocent and innocuous Finance Bill, but the memories of those of us on this side of the House do not die quite as

quickly as that. We still recall a Finance Bill which contained the birth of the Corporation Tax and of the Selective Employment Tax. We do not feel any assurance that horrors of that sort will not be repeated in future. If they are, we shall want a certain amount of time. I, for one, am doubtful whether one can ever rely upon Ministers to feel any great sympathy with the desires of Opposition back-benchers in such a contingency.
The right hon. Gentleman also referred to what he called a voluntary agreement backed by safeguards. That was in the second debate. In the previous debate, he had talked about a voluntary agreement backed by reserve powers. On the second occasion, the stick of reserve powers had been hidden decently under his coat and he did not use such language again. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), however, discerned the threat quickly. He, in his unrecognisable capacity of Little Red Riding Hood, was quick to see the long teeth of this apparently amiable old lady who was introducing quite innocuous proposals.
The whole House, and cerainly we who sit on the back benches of the Opposition side, are grateful to my right hon. Friend for his perception. The right hon. Gentleman used a number of slightly veiled threats. He said that we would see whether my right hon. Friend pursued his very dangerous and extreme action of challenging a balanced compromise put forward unanimously by a Select Committee. On that occasion, the right hon. Gentleman praised the Select Committee to the skies. However, I cannot help feeling that the Select Committee allowed itself to be outmanoeuvred and bamboozled by the Government, and, in particular, by the wiles of the Chief Secretary.
As I see it, the Select Committee made certain proposals which, in their wisdom, the Government turned down. According to the right hon. Gentleman's account, the Select Committee then said to the Government, "What would you do?", thereby exposing itself to a mass of ingenuity. The Government were not slow to take their opportunity, and the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon.
and hon. Friends put forward this proposal which the Select Committee swallowed whole. I, for one, do not support it.
The right hon. Gentleman prayed in aid the fact that the Front Benches agreed with one another. There are some on this side of the House who do not always see in a matter which is the subject of agreement between Front Benches something which is ultimately and finally blessed by heaven. We tend to regard such matters with grave suspicion, and when the right hon. Gentleman says that back bench hon. Members opposite also agree, there is nothing remarkable in that. What would be remarkable is if some of those same hon. Members agreed with this proposal in the future when they are sitting on this side of the House. That would be entirely different.
There is no reason why my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench should worry about it. The only people who are concerned are those whose rights are threatened, namely, Opposition back-bench hon. Members. It is they who will be squeezed out. Their Amendments are the ones for which time will not be found, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett) rightly said.
The other day, the Leader of the House denied that there would be any basic shift in the balance of power between the House and the Executive. This is where we disagree with him, because there will be great differences. First of all, Treasury Ministers can expect a great deal more support, not to say padding, from the benches behind them. That will all take away from Opposition time. However, if there is no change in the basic balance of power between the Executive and the House of Commons, why make the change at all—[Interruption.] I am sure that the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Rhodes) has something very interesting to say——

Mr. Crossman: He was not saying it to me. I was listening to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) with a very keen ear, and I heard every word that he said.

Mr. Peyton: If there is no change in the basic balance of power, why do we have this Motion? It must achieve some-

thing, and I cannot believe that it will achieve anything save to our prejudice.
Another remark made by the right hon. Gentleman was to the effect that fair and orderly discussion depends on each side having ultimate sanctions but not having recourse to them. The burden of our complaint here is that the Government are adding to their ultimate powers and taking away from ours. That is what worries us. My right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) described the Motion as an attempt to make an honest woman of the Guillotine. I see what he meant. What the Motion is doing in fact is providing a fairly vicious young sister for that lady. Future Oppositions will have to cope with the pair of them.
I profundly agree with the Amendments standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames to which I subsequently added my name. So I do not claim credit for the authorship of those Amendments, though I support them with vigour and conviction. I do not believe that a two-hour debate is an adequate deterrent on the Government. A debate lasting for that amount of time will not make the Government pause before introducing the type of Motion before us. Nor do I find it tolerable that we should be dependent on the opinion of a Minister of the Crown.
The leader of the House should be the first to recollect that when he was in Opposition he did not always find the opinions of Ministers of the Crown wholly acceptable. Indeed, he was a frequent and eloquent challenger of those opinions. In these days, when the power of Government is increasing constantly, I look with ever growing suspicion, dislike and jealousy on the suggestion that we should accept as being something which carries conviction the opinion of a Minister of the Crown.
Ministers can be sub-divided into three categories in their relations with the House of Commons. There are those who fear the House and there are those who despise it. Perhaps those two classes intermix. There are also those, very few of them, who have a deep respect for the House and who always show it. The present Leader of the House is only reasonably young in his tenure of office


and it would not become me to pass final judgment on him now. There are few Ministers in the Government today who have shown, in their tenure of office, any very great respect for the House of Commons. There are many, however, who have shown contempt, while there are others who have shown fear.
The Motion can be described as one which calls for more Government and less discussion. The record of the present Government is one that demands a great deal more discussion and a lot less Governmental activity. If the Government wish to introduce and initiate reforms such as this, they may call in aid a Select Committee, but they should, in the long run, impose them on the Opposition rather than seek by wiles to persuade us to agree.
I regard this proposal as wholly unpalatable. The reasons for the procedures of the House of Commons may not always be obvious, but they were mostly created by men whose desire it was to protect the freedom of the individual and the liberty of the subject. Back benchers, who nowadays do not enjoy any very great privileges, should be willing to see what privileges they have go only with the utmost suspicion and care. They should see that if such privileges are to be sacrificed, there must be some very substantial return from the Government. In this case we are being asked to give up something very substantial but are being offered virtually nothing in return.
I pay tribute to the Leader of the House for the courtesy which he has not always shown but which, on this occasion, he did show when moving the Motion. At the same time, however, I believe that his courtesy was matched by his cunning, and my hon. Friends would do well to see through it and reject the Motion.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. James Ramsden: I almost feel that I should apologise, Mr. Speaker, for seeking to catch your eye twice on the same day. That is contrary to my normal practice, but it so happens that two pieces of business set down by the Leader of the House—the Second Reading of a Bill this morning and now the continuation of the debate on this Motion—are topics on which I have

strong convictions. I therefore hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not blame me if I now make a few remarks in support of the Amendments standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter).
I am not a member of the present Select Committee on Procedure, but I was a member of the 1959 Select Committee, of which the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) was also a member. When he was telling the House during our last debate about his conviction that there ought to be a built-in timetable to all Bills, it carried me back to our discussions in that Select Committee in 1959. I remember the apprehension I then felt about the possible developments of this line of argument, so that, in a sense, this present speech voices the deep-seated and long-held apprehensions that I have had on this subject, and I have had this speech under my belt for some considerable time.
What makes me apprehensive of the present proposals of the Leader of the House? I say what I have to say with due deference to the right hon. Gentleman's speech in moving the Motion, and certainly with due deference to the great efforts made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) and his colleagues on the Select Committee to achieve a compromise acceptable to the whole House. Even granted that what we have before us is suggested only as an experiment for this one year, there are substantial objections to the proposed procedure.
The Select Committee itself perhaps tended to undervalue the weight of the evidence given by my right hon. Friend the Opposition Chief Whip. In support of that statement, I should like to quote what my right hon. Friend said with reference to the possibility of an agreed timetable, which is the substance of this present proposal. In the first column in page 20 of the Fourth Report, we read:
But if you say to the Opposition Chief Whip: 'You must make a voluntary agreement before the Committee Stage starts', he will tell you: 'You are putting me in an impossible position. You are asking me to do something which I cannot carry out'.
Later, in discussion with the right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn), my right


hon. Friend said, in the second column on page 27:
If Mr. Woodburn is talking about a timetable attached to the Finance Bill, then I think this is a guillotine motion on the Finance Bill by another name; I think it would be so regarded by any Opposition; and I cannot think that any Opposition would agree that that was a good idea.
I hope that I have not been too selective, but I thought that those were two noteworthy points in my right hon. Friend's evidence. In view of that I think that when the Select Committee said:
Mr. Whitelaw, without committing himself, did not rule this out as a possibility.
it was being slightly optimistic, if that is the right word, about that evidence.
I believe that this proposal does constitute a built-in Guillotine on the Finance Bill, and that its effect will be to change the character of the debate on the Finance Bill in such a way that it will not be possible for back-bench members of the Opposition of the day to discharge what I conceive to be their proper constitutional duty with regard to that Measure.
Now, when there is an Amendment concerned with what the Opposition believe to be a bad tax or a proposal for taxation injurious to widespread commercial or private interests, we have a succession of speakers from the Opposition side one after another battering at the Treasury Bench. If that continuous battery is interrupted it is interrupted only by the odd independent-minded hon. Member on the Government side whose convictions drive him to reinforce the arguments put from the Opposition side. Because of that his intervention is all the more telling. Because of this character of the debate concessions are made from time to time by the Treasury Bench, possibly because, the weight of the argument prevails, but also certainly because the length of the debate and the amount of time consumed and the fact that there has been no prior agreement to control that time, because of the very uncertainty of the situation operates on the Government and makes them more disposed to come to an agreement.

Sir Edward Boyle: My right hon. Friend speaks about "the" debate, but would he not agree that the essence of opposition to a bad tax is that there should be

a number of debates on separate Amendments?

Mr. Ramsden: I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. We were discussing this the other day. I was about to make that point; my right hon. Friend has anticipated it. Under the present proposal, in the form in which it is in the mind of the Government, they can ultimately control the length of time for the proceedings on the whole Bill, and we shall get the debate developing one-for-one from each side right from the start. I see no reason why that should not happen, and obviously the Government Whips will encourage it.
It may be argued that this will produce a much better balanced debate, but it is certainly not my experience, and I doubt if it is that of my hon. Friends, that what carries conviction in this House and wins concessions is the quality of debate. I am afraid that is not so. If it were, Parliament would be more nearly perfect, but it would be a different world. Apparently what does win concessions is such little power as the Opposition may retain to work their will on the Government and on the Treasury Ministers.
From our point of view, this proposal will produce a different sort of debate. I say "our point of view" because we are the Opposition for the time being. I think it will be a sort of debate which will render us less effective in representing the interests of those affected by the proposals of Treasury Ministers in Finance Bills.
The third point is that there is a sense in which the Finance Bill is special legislation. I do not mean "special" only in the sense that it affects the financial interests of individuals and companies. I do not mean "special" only in the sense, which I think the Opposition Chief Whip meant, in the evidence which has been referred to, of being tied up with the whole question of "No taxation without representation" and so on. It is special in a much simpler and more obvious way in that of all legislation the Finance Bill comes upon the House and the country as it were "out of the blue".
There is no prior consultation before the Chancellor's proposals are introduced because he has to preserve his Budget secrecy. Therefore, consultations


with affected interests which normally precede the introduction of important legislation are absent in the case of the Finance Bill. There is very little time between the introduction of the Budget and the bringing forward of the Finance Bill for the interests affected who wish to make representations to be received by Treasury Ministers and for them to have time to deploy their case. The time just does not exist. Therefore, it is all the more incumbent upon Parliament to be able to make the representations which, in the case of other legislation, are made beforehand, often privately to Treasury Ministers. Any proposal which limits Parliament's ability to discharge this duty should be regarded with suspicion.
On a complicated and controversial Bill, one may expect as a matter of course to find a great number of Amendments tabled, many of which hon. Members on this side will wish to argue. This is right and natural. When a tax is bad, or, not to use emotive words, questionable or controversial, the only way open to an Opposition to prove how bad or questionable it is is by moving Amendments, perhaps many of them, each one directed to a particular aspect of the tax or to its effects on a certain group of individuals. With the timetable procedure, if there is a long and balanced debate upon an early group of Amendments about one tax, other Amendments, which other hon. Members may wish to move and which may well be worthy of being moved, will be shoved out and might escape without discussion.

Mr. John M. Temple: Will my right hon. Friend agree that complete complicated Clauses might go through without discussion if this procedure were adopted?

Mr. Ramsden: A fortiori that is absolutely true. I am not thinking only of the notorious 1965 Bill, in whose passage the Financial Secretary played a great part and in which I played a much smaller part. I am thinking of any controversial Finance Bill. I am thinking of Finance Bills such as that which followed the 'pots and pans' Budget of Lord Butler. Other hon. Members will not have any difficulty in supplying examples. This process, if the Opposition are

allowed to go in for it, as I think they must be so allowed, is bound to take a long time.
The corollary is that we shall have to sit late. The Select Committee has started from the position that all-night sittings are undesirable and that the House should make every effort not to sit late. Late sittings have their objections. They are inconvenient to hon. Members. They are inconvenient for the staff in many respects. However, they afford the Opposition an opportunity of doing their constitutional duty, which I do not see any other procedure which I have heard suggested being able to afford. I should be sorry if the House lightly ruled them out.
Although I recognise the great and genuine urge for reform which animates certain quarters of the House at the moment, I think that all these proposals are not particularly necessary, in view of how things have worked, because our experience is that the Government always get the Finance Bill. They do not guillotine it. I do not remember a Finance Bill having been guillotined. Without any elaborate procedure of Motions being moved, the Finance Bill, in the way these things work, carries with it its own built-in voluntary timetable which is not the sort of voluntary timetable suggested in this Motion.
I will tell the Leader of the House how it works, although he knows this perfectly well. In fact, he knows it even better than I do. It works when, after a long debate lasting into the small hours, the group of people principally concerned with carrying on the debates on the Opposition side meet the following morning somewhere to decide on the course of the debates for the next day. Some of them are anxious to go on running something. Others say, "We have given this a good run. The House is getting bored with it, the country is getting bored with it, the Press is getting bored with it. There is no more political mileage in it. We had better have another hour and leave it at that". That is the way it works. No one feels frustrated, and the Government get their Bill. No one can say that the Opposition have been gagged. Concessions are made. People feel that they have won concessions. In the end, the whole thing is wound up, and there are no complaints.
I do not see why matters should not be left as they are. With great respect to the Leader of the House, I should be more convinced of the weight of his proposals if they were supported by any of those whom I remember from his party's days in opposition as big Finance Bill figures. The right hon. Gentleman's activities lay in other directions. I cannot myself claim to be a great Finance Bill figure, but there are those who can. If the hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever), now Joint Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Economic Affairs, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Education and Science, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary or others one can think of really threw their weight behind this proposal, I should be convinced, perhaps, though surprised, bearing in mind that they must know that one day they may find themselves on this side of the House.
It would be a pity if we were to lose some of the rather exciting and unpredictable twists and turns which can occur on the Finance Bill. I remember an occasion when, after a long debate, un-reasonaDly extended, as we, then on the Government side, thought, there was finally a move from, I think, our own Front Bench to report Progress. The then Chairman of Ways and Means refused to accept the Motion on the ground that there had not been any progress for the past four hours. We were all in a quandary, wondering how to get to bed. No one knew how to get the House up because he would not accept the Motion. At the end, someone had to devise a procedure by which it was moved that the Chairman should leave the Chair. This was accepted, with the result that the Government lost the Finance Bill, and a Motion had to be moved to reinstate it. That is only a small thing, but it is part of the atmosphere. Hon. Members opposite may call it an antic, but I should be sorry to lose the unpredictability and flexibility which our procedure has at the moment.
The opposition to the status quo and the enthusiasm for reform stem, I suspect, from the experience of 1965 and the understandable feeling among hon. Members opposite that they spend a lot of time hanging about while the Finance Bill is in progress. I do not think that

having to hang about in the building or in the Chamber is, in itself, such a despicable part of Parliamentary procedure. One of the most valuable experiences which hon. Members have to undergo is having to be here. I do not believe that everything of value in Parliamentary life happens in the Chamber or that we are here only to debate back and forth. A great deal of value in our being here lies in the opportunities one has to study our fellow Members and, in particular, those who for the time being are Ministers discharging responsibility on behalf of the Crown. The hot-house and rather strained atmosphere sometimes evident during the passage of the Finance Bill provides not a bad environment in which to assess the character and true qualities of those who are aspiring to lead the House of Commons and the country. I should not, therefore, like to see any change made, and I shall be sorry if the proposals of the Leader of the House are accepted.

10.25 p.m.

Dr. David Kerr: There can be few experiences more wounding than to discover that all the kindnesses which one has set out to do are rebuffed by those whom one thought to be one's friends, or even by hon. Members opposite whom one thought might be one's friends, rejected as pieces of cruelty or as cunning, with which the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) charged my right hon. Friend, combined with a sort of disguised courtesy which was the sugar coating to the pill.
In fact, we on the Select Committee on Procedure had everybody in the House in mind when we made some suggestions which the Government, in their wisdom, have been kind enough to take up. Those of us who are, so to speak, hell-bent on reforming this place do not necessarily and always regard the Select Committee on Procedure as the ideal instrument for achieving that.
I speak as a member of the Select Committee, and I should like to elaborate on what I have just said in case anybody should interpret it as an attack either on the Committee or on my fellow members of it. The first thing which I think those Members who oppose the Motion must recognise is how much further some of us would like to go and


how steadfastly, intelligently and persuasively we were restrained by some of the members of the Select Committee. Among them, perhaps I might be allowed to mention the right hon. and learned Member for The Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), whose wisdom and experience in the House count for a great deal, certainly on this side of the House and on our side of the Select Committee. We listened to his advice, and his colleagues should know that the modest proposal now before the House was won in the teeth of far greater enthusiasm for reform from people like myself.

Sir D. Glover: Would the hon. Gentleman correct the word "reform" and say "alteration"?

Dr. Kerr: No, Sir. I stick to the good English word
"reform", which is really what some of us are very concerned about.
I was about to say that reference has been made to the 1965 Finance Bill. I recognise that the rôle played by that Bill in stimulating an urge for reform among those of us who entered the House in 1964 cannot be over-rated. I am sure that my own interest and enthusiasm for reform stems from those long, weary, and, to me, continuously pointless nights that we spent here.
I acknowledge, of course, that that enthusiasm does not make me an expert on Parliamentary reform. It makes me, I acknowledge with humility, a hothead, which the slow refrigeration of this place may be cooling down a little. What we are faced with tonight is not what I regard as a masterly stroke of reform of the procedure of the House. I very much respect the kind criticism which is offered by right hon. and hon. Members opposite. They are speaking in a way which I admire and applaud. They are speaking for
back-bench rights. However, they must not overlook that we on this side of the House also cherish back-bench rights, whether we happen to belong to the party in Government or the party in Opposition we cherish those rights in the same way.
Although I admire the way in which they are doing battle for what we want to preserve, I do not see that the Motion is as damaging as is claimed. In evidence for what I have just said I adduce the fact that the hon. Member for Yeovil

based much of his case upon the modest Amendments tabled by himself and his right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). They would not in fact so alter the substance of the Motion as to destroy the case for it, which the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman are attempting to destroy. The hon. Member for Yeovil has not destroyed it by simply referring to the modest Amendments.

Mr. Peyton: If the hon. Gentleman looks at HANSARD tomorrow he will see that I spent about a minute and no more in dealing with the specific Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend. I made my comments on quite other grounds.

Dr. Kerr: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but nevertheless he is one of the signatories to the Amendment. He is not evidently deploying a more powerful case in terms of a more powerful Amendment and I rest therefore on my profound belief that he is less concerned to defeat the Motion than to speak vigorously and properly against it.
I must again point out that the hon. Gentleman has his allies on the Select Committee and that the kind of discussion we are taking part in tonight is only a repetition of the kind of discussion which took place in the Select Committee. This is one of the reasons why I tried very hard to resist taking part in this debate. It seems to me that once the Committee has reported its members, apart from perhaps the Chairman and the leader of the Opposition members on the Committee, have a duty not to intervene too long and vigorously in a debate in the House which we have already had in the Committee.
But it is only right, in view of the apparent misconceptions I have heard set forth in this debate, that someone should protect the interests of such worthy people as the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) and the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral, both of whom, I assure their hon. Friends, deployed the case to such an extent that some of us who still, despite the evidence, would wish the Finance Bill to be taken in Committee upstairs, are persuaded, at this moment


at any rate, that there is a great case for asking the House to adopt this form of procedure for this Session.
We shall have a modest Finance Bill this time and this is a modest Motion for dealing with it. I urge that a close examination of the Motion be made by the House. It has built-in protections— reference to the House, a Committee to steer the Bill and the long history of the Finance Bill procedure which, if one examines the Report of the Select Committee, is determined almost by tradition as to length. That would be taken into consideration by the Business Committee in determining the timing. All these factors are built in protections for the rights of back benchers.
It was this kind of persuasive language which prompted us on both sides of the Select Committee to bring together our very diverse views on this matter and to urge the House to adopt this method for this Session as an experiment in the first place and particularly, I emphasise, until the Committee's more comprehensive review of the whole of Public Bill procedure can be put before the House in order to provide a setting against which any necessary alteration in Finance Bill procedure might become even more acceptable to the House than I think: his Motion should be tonight.

10.35 p.m.

Sir Douglas Glover: The hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr) has reinforced the objection that many of my hon. Friends take to the Motion. I do not want to detain the House unduly, but we are debating something that should not be debated at this hour. It is fundamental to the whole procedures of Parliament. I admit to the Leader of the House that I do not speak for the whole of my own side of the House.
There are many of my hon. Friends, as there are many hon. Members opposite, who take the view of the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central and the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn), who spoke when we last debated this subject. If their thinking were carried to its logical conclusion, it would be said that as the Government had a majority, once they had explained the Bill and once the Opposition Front Bench spokesman had replied, anything which

happened after that would be a waste of time and that we might as well have the Division and finish the business. The argument is that anything after that moment is just filibustering—unless it is accepted that the fundamental duty of the House of Commons is the power of delay.
To give the House an example which is valid to this argument, I should like to quote the Termination of Pregnancy Bill. I am not now entering on the rights or wrongs, virtues or vices, of that Bill which, on Second Reading, had a majority of about 223 to 29, an overwhelming majority. However, those who do not believe the Bill to be right have undertaken a detailed examination of the Bill which has resulted in delay. Many organisations which would not otherwise have known of the implications of the Bill are now alerted.
While it would be wrong for me to say what will happen at later stages of that Bill, I think that it will be found that the House is much more closely divided than it was on Second Reading. In other words, the House of Commons will have done one of the jobs for which it is designed, which is to delay the implementation of the Executive's ideas and to give time for opinions outside the Chamber to coagulate and become coherent and receive expression. Anything which reduces that power of delay must take away from the power of the House.
I am not against reform. I have been in the House far too long to believe that there are not some things which we can do to reform it. What makes me suspicious is that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House during 13 years of opposition was conspicuously absent from the detailed discussion of Bills. He came here on many significant occasions, thrilled the House with his oratory, and then went away to some other activity. He was rarely present in the early hours of the morning for detailed Committee stages. With the greatest respect to him—I think that he is learning—he does not understand how the House of Commons works, not even with some of his own procedures. I am sure that if he had realised what would happen, he would not have brought in morning sessions, which are so emasculated——

Mr. Speaker: We have enough to discuss without mentioning morning sittings.

Sir D. Glover: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. In politics it is a very good thing to do one's homework, and if one is to suggest amendments to one's procedure, it is as well to have done one's homework. I remember that the right hon. Gentleman and I were the chairmen of our respective party conferences in 1961 and I remember reading an article which was rather complimentary to the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), but which said that the Labour Party conference got into an awful tangle because the right hon. Gentleman had not done his homework.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member himself must do his homework and get back to the Motion.

Sir D. Glover: I promise, Mr. Speaker, that from now on I will be the soul of rectitude, and I am sure that you will not have to call me to order again.
I am sure that the House was impressed by the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) and by the danger in the Motion which he outlined. The Motion pays lip service to our procedure, but in practice it takes away much of the Opposition's power for delay and argument. On Committee or Report stage of a Bill, once it is known that the House will rise at 11 p.m., the seven hours allotted to the debate will be equally divided between both sides of the House. If it is known that eight days have been allotted to the Finance Bill, that time will be equally divided between the two sides of the House. I do not blame Government back-bench Members for that. If I were on the Government back benches and this system operated. I should have no hesitation in taking the maximum time I could to deprive the Opposition of the time to marshal and hammer home their case.
At an election there is a minority—although it is amazing how quickly minorities turn into majorities. Millions of people in the country, in that minority, suffer from a sense of frustration. The party which they dislike more than anything else politically is in power. For 13 years this view was held by Labour Party supporters. Now it is held by

Conservative Party supporters. They expect the minority in the House of Commons to hammer home the views which they feel ought to be the majority view of the nation, and anything which takes away the power to do that makes them feel that their standard bearers are not doing their duty as they ought and that Parliament is not the forum of argument and discussion that it ought to be.
Fundamentally this comes down to the fact that many right hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, after 13 years of power, are still very much Treasury-Bench minded. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, after two-and-a-half years in power, are becoming very Treasury-Bench minded. Many young and ambitious Members opposite are convinced that before the issue is put to the electorate again they will be on the Front Bench. They do not want the business of the House to be delayed. They want to make powerful speeches from the Dispatch Box, sweeping the Opposition aside, getting a big majority in the Division Lobbies and going home at 9.30 p.m.
That is what any party in power wants to do, but it is not the role of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman is the first to admit that the Executive has more power today than it had in the past and that every day which passes sees the executive with more power. But the House has the power of delay and examination and particularly the power to let people outside know what are the issues about which we are arguing.
This gives time for the Press, television and radio to report and for the various organisations affected by what we are discussing to put their arguments to Members. That inevitably means that if we as back benchers are doing the job for which we were returned we have to slow down the rate of legislation and, when something is controversial, give the people outside an opportunity of expressing their views. If the Leader of the House would say this clearly and unequivocally, it might remove a great deal of my objection.
Under this procedure, as I understand it, we are to get, through the usual channels, an agreed procedure. If the debate is not going very well the Patronage Secretary will say to the Leader of the House that something must be done about it.
Then, as I understand, the matter is sent to the Business Committee of the Panel of Chairmen plus some elected members. I will use the Finance Bill of 1965 as an example. What worries me is that, after the Bill has been on the Floor of the House for three days, at least half the Government's Amendments and two-thirds of the Opposition's Amendments had not been put down. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will intervene if I am wrong.
If the Leader of the House would give us a solemn assurance the Opposition would have the right to go back to the Business Committee and say that although they agreed to seven or eight days as a result of the Committee's recommendation to the House, since then the Government had brought in another 150 Amendments. If the House took only half a minute on half of them, as they were uncontroversial, that would mean l¼ hours, and if they took half an hour on each of the remainder which were controversial, and only a spokesman from each of the Front Benches spoke, this would add up to another day's business.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give us his views on this, because it will influence the way I vote tonight. If the right hon. Gentleman would give an assurance that at that time the Opposition could go back to the Business Committee and say that because of the alteration in the circumstances, and because of the number of Amendments that the Committee was being asked to consider, they wanted extra time, and the Government of the day did not have the power to refuse, it would affect the way I will vote tonight.

10.49 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Birch: This proposal is a very bad one indeed. The basic business of this House is, and always has been, to control expenditure and Supply. We in this House have lost control of expenditure. The House had control of expenditure in Gladstone's day when it was £60 million and Government services were few. We have lost control now, but we have not lost control of taxation and it would be a terrible thing if we did.
When the right hon. Gentleman was introducing this proposal he referred to

the Finance Bill as a bore which afflicts us in the summer. It is the most important thing that the House has to do. It is not a bore. For the people of this country taxation is not a bore; it is an agony. Our job is to try to get taxation as equitable and right as we possibly can, whether it bores or not. That is what we are here to do, not to talk about foreign affairs and things that we know nothing about. That is what we should be doing.
This proposal is said to be an experiment, but everyone knows that it is not—it is nonsense to pretend that it is. Then it is said that it is not really a Guillotine. [t is a Guillotine, in a more genteel form, but it is a Guillotine. I have no doubt whatever about that. The most discreditable of all the arguments brought forward in support is this is that if we do not agree to the Government's proposal, they might do something worse.
Let them do even their damndest. The country will realise this and the Government who bring in badly digested taxation ought to be punished for it. Everyone has mentioned the degrading examples of Capital Gains Tax and Corporation Tax. Treasury Ministers were begging us not to go too fast because they did not have their briefs ready. That is not a case for a Guillotine. A Minister who makes a bad speech ought to be punished for delaying the House. This is a really bad, evil, nonsensical business, and I hope that every honourable man will oppose it.

10.52 p.m.

Mr. John Nott (St. Ives): This Motion is thoroughly regrettable. In the short time that I have been in this House I have formed the view that our procedure is in urgent need of reform. But this particular Motion seems to be reforming our procedure in quite the wrong direction. If, in the Finance Bill, there are certain Clauses about which hon. Members feel very strongly, surely it is essential that they are thoroughly debated here and thrashed out before discussion on them comes to an end.
If hon. Members feel that the Finance Bill takes too long in this House, the best reform would be to send part of it upstairs and let those hon. Members interested in particular Clauses debate


them at length, and let the more controversial items, which affect the general policies relating to taxation be debated here on the Floor of the House. If this Motion is carried, Members who have not been in the House long, who feel strongly about particular Clauses, and who wish to speak upon them, will find themselves excluded, because members of the Privy Council and other senior Members will wish to speak. When the matters concerning them most deeply come along, they will not have an opportunity of raising their voice on points which could be of substantial interest to their constituents.
If there is to be a reform of the Finance Bill, the really vital, fundamental, difficult and more controversial aspects of it should be debated on the Floor of the House and the complicated, technical matters, about which certain Members have some knowledge, should be taken upstairs and debated at length, without any kind of Guillotine being imposed.
I feel that this Motion will detract from the prestige of the House, because certain Clauses will pass through without being given sufficient examination. On that basis, I shall certainly oppose it.

10.54 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman): In reply to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott), I would just say that his suggestion that we should split the Finance Bill, and have parts sent upstairs and parts taken on the Floor, has been considered ad nauseam by Select Committees and found to be impracticable. It has also been found to be impracticable by the Government. We must turn our attention to the proposals which have been tested and which, at least, are put forward with some experience.
We have had a good, long debate and I will try to reply to the points raised, and not repeat the main argument, which is fairly well-known.
In reply to the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) I must say that I feel that he was being a little unjust when he said that it was the wrong time of day, or night, to debate this subject. We tried first from 3.30 p.m. to 10 p.m.; we tried it in the morning; and

we are trying it now. I have enjoyed the debate at all times, and I would not like to tell the House which was the time when the speeches excelled and when they flagged. It has been an extremely good debate at all times of day and night, for what the hon. Gentleman rightly called an inexperienced Leader of the House.
The hon. Member rather pricked my conscience when he reminded me of my past. He is quite right when he says that on past Finance Bills I was one of the mass of sufferers rather than an active accomplice in torture such as himself. I was merely woken up and forced through the Lobby. All I can say is that in my earliest experiences I always came into the Chamber and found the "whiz kid" from Wirral speaking, and making his name as one of the torturers who, I think I am right in saying, tortured the late Hugh Dalton.
I am aware that many hon. Members speak with far greater authority than I—I see them all round me—on the Finance Bill. I simply remind the hon. Member that I am not speaking with my own authority. I am only recommending a proposal which has been put forward by a Select Committee unanimously and strongly, and supported by one member of his own Front Bench, although not by all members of his own Front Bench. I would not, of course, presume to put this proposal forward unless it had been something which had been tested in the Select Committee.
I now turn, if the House will forgive me, to one or two of the points which were mentioned in the last period of our debate on Wednesday morning. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) asked me about the meaning of "days" in my Motion. It means sittings. If my hon. Friend asks me how long a sitting lasts, this is one of the things which we have been discussing, but it seems to me to be implicit in any agreement of the kind which I have described that the parties to the agreement should have in mind a time at which, subject to a good deal of give and take such as has been described, they would hope to see the sitting's business completed: that is to say, nobody would have a rigid timetable.
We would always accept the need for the unpredictable, which has been asked for in such moving speeches, but one would have a broad agreement made both about the total time and the day for reporting back to the House, and also, although not being precise, about the time a: which we would hope to end each day's sitting. As many right hon. and hon. Members have told me, this broadly occurs already.
The question is, as I think, the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) would say, whether I am seeking to gild what is already a lily. Do not we have an admirable system of voluntary agreements—this is being put to me—and is not everything so good on the Finance Bill that we cannot make it better? Those who are active accomplices in torture may think that it is perfect, but a number of right hon. and hon. Members who suffer under them wonder whether we could not introduce into our procedures a little more predictability without destroying altogether the charm for which the right hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) so movingly pleaded.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that minority interests often get an Amendment accepted on the Finance Bill only when they have repeated it year after year? How will they get the opportunity to do that under the right hon. Gentleman's proposal? It seems to me to be ruled out.

Mr. Crossman: I would have thought that that was true. Surely, however, the answer is that it is year after year, not hour after hour after midnight. That is the way one gets it done. What we are discussing—and I thank the House for a very good-tempered discussion — is whether we can improve our procedure and make it rather more predictable without destroying the unpredictability, and without, incidentally, basically shifting the balance of power with which we are dealing.
The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), in a characteristic speech, said that he thought that the whole of this meant more government and less discussion. He said that the Government like this. He said that the Opposition Front Bench likes it. Here, I think, he was exaggerating. Some like it, some do not.
The hon. Member said that all the Government back benchers like it, and, therefore, he would not agree to it.
There comes a point when, if three parts out of four like something very much, the question is how far the fourth part should prevent the three parts from trying the experiment. We are discussing whether this experiment should be tried. But I recognise that a large number of hon. Members on the Opposition back benches conscientiously tell me that this experiment will spoil the effect of the Finance Bill.
I want now to deal with what I thought was the most important new argument put this evening by the right hon. Member for Harrogate. I thought that he made a very charming speech, but also I thought that he put two points which needed an answer. It is true that in his speech he sounded almost as if he were reminiscing about his school days and those midnight feats that one had, which seem so wonderful 20 years later. This was a picture of events at 4 o'clock in the morning, and the charm and amusement of those occasions. However, one has to consider the matter not only in terms of charm, but also in terms of the way in which we conduct our business.
I come, therefore, to the right hon. Gentleman's central point. I think I quote him correctly. He said, "One gets concessions by battering the Government, not by the quality of the debate." I reflected on this a great deal, for I think that this is a serious argument. It is a serious matter to say that the way the business is conducted here traditionally is to concentrate on quantity, and that the quality of what one says does not matter. But, on reflection, I wonder whether he is right.
I think that it is often said that the thing to do is to go on for hours and hours, and then the Government get tired, rather than make a short, completely convincing case which they cannot answer. I tend, as a rational human being, to believe that the second approach, rather than the first, is the way we want to conduct our business. But I can see how eager the Opposition are for the first method, where it does not matter what one says, so long as one says it for long enough.
The question I ask myself is whether, historically, this is actually true. Have Oppositions got their way more by this


principle that "If we say a thing for long enough, and violently enough, and with little enough sense, in the end the Government will be on our side"? The quotation from the right hon. Gentleman's speech is "not the quality of the debate, but the battering." What does that mean? I would say in all seriousness that this is a curious view to be expressed by somebody who says that the Finance Bill is the most important part of our proceedings, where we have to defend the public against the Government, where serious work has to be done. Then we are told that it does not matter what is said, so long as it is said for long enough.

Mr. Ramsden: The right hon. Gentleman is not being quite fair. I was referring to the debate in which we have one speech from one side of the House followed by a speech from the other side, which is often described as a debate of greater quality than the debate in which speeches come continuously from one side. It was only in that sense that I said that that particular debate was not necessarily better than the other kind.

Mr. Crossman: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has explained. What he was surely referring to was the battering, one after another, saying things until the Government give way. There is an argument for this. I said that delaying progress by speech is one way of impressing a Government. But I wonder whether, during the Committee stage of a Finance Bill, one gets concessions best in this way. I wonder whether on Corporation Tax and the Capital Gains Tax —two controversial measures—what I would call the filibustering type of debates get more satisfaction than debates in which the speeches are short, terse and to the point. This Motion which I am moving makes the assumption that the quality of the debate matters as much as the battering.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Mr. Patrick Jenkin (Wanstead and Woodford) rose——

Mr. Crossman: I think that the House would like to come to a decision——

Sir E. Boyle: May I speak as one who has played a fairly active part in the debates on six Finance Bills? Surely it is only after protracted debate, some-

times late at night, that it becomes apparent that the Treasury Minister is not able to satisfy the Committee? That often applies to both sides of the Committee, and not just to one side.

Mr. Crossman: I accept that there are times when battering and quality coincide. That is a very good debate when it happens. Therefore, this is a perfectly sound point to make.
If it were a matter of our cutting down enormously the total amount of time for the Finance Bill, that would be something else, but nobody is suggesting that. This unanimous proposal is not to reduce the time, but to see that the time is spent more sensibly, and to see if we can sometimes have not quite so many late-night sittings. These are the objects, and I emphasise this for the benefit of hon. Members who may not have been in the Chamber earlier in this discussion. I believe that the case for this has been made extremely clear.
The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) obviously wants me to answer——

Sir D. Glover: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the question of the amount of time to be allocated to the Finance Bill, will he answer my question, since, as I pointed out, his answer will affect the way in which I vote? What will happen, agreement having been reached with the Business Committee, if the Government then suddenly table an extra lot of Amendments?

Mr. Crossman: I will answer that question immediately, and my answer concerns the first Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames. If the Government were to put down a great many Amendments, then, as I understand, that would be pointed out to the Chancellor or the Government through the usual channels.
I am assuming—and there seems to be some misunderstanding about the way in which our proceedings go on at present— that the usual channels would be the usual channels; that the Chancellor and the "shadow" Chancellor would converse about the debate. The only question is when they would start talking, and whether there should be this safeguard.
The answer, therefore, is that this would come up in those discussions, and it would be clearly put to the Government, if such a mass of additional Amendments were put down, that more time must be provided.

Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: What the right hon. Gentleman is saying is, no doubt, relevant while a voluntary agreement was in operation. But can he clear up the question of what would happen if those Amendments were tabled after a time table had been fixed and after the debate and vote?

Mr. Crossman: I had the impression that it was more frequently on Report that Government amendments were put down. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I think I am right. If the question is what would we do if there was a major change in the balance of the Bill owing to a mass of Government Amendments having been tabled, then the answer is that that would be discussed through the usual channels in the usual way. In other words, if the Opposition concluded that what had happened had clearly violated the agreement, then they would have their method of dealing with the matter if it was felt that a change had not been made by the Government in view of what they had done. I am, of course, assuming a rational relationship, as often exists, between the two sides.

Sir D. Glover: This is a fundamental point. I am not talking about the voluntary position. I am considering what might happen if the matter had gone to the Business Committee, the timetable had been debated for two hours under the right hon. Gentleman's proposal and then, after all that, the Government suddenly brought forward another 100 Amendments. What would happen then?

Mr. Crossman: The hon. Gentleman has not understood the proposal of the Select Committee, which the Government are recommending. The Government are not recommending that a timetable should be debated for two hours and put to the House. We are proposing that there should be agreement reached between both sides without a two-hour debate or use of the Standing Order, which would only be a safeguard or re-

serve, and, as I explained, would only be brought into use then. The hon. Gentleman does not have the position right. There would not be a two-hour debate unless the relationship had broken down.
I hope that I may be allowed to turn to the Amendment. I was asked whether it was fair that a Minister of the Crown——

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I must ask the right hon. Gentleman a question on this topic of time. It would be almost inconceivable that, after three or four days of a Committee stage, 100 Amendments would suddenly be tabled. But in the event of such an extraordinary circumstance occurring, would not the right hon. Gentleman say that perhaps the whole matter of what should happen could be reconsidered?

Mr. Crossman: I am saying that if that happened, there would, of course, be consultations through the usual channels, and if 100 Amendments were put down and we had a rational relationship, then the time would be revised because there would not have been a time laid down. I emphasise that under the existing proposal there is not going to be a two-hour debate on a Guillotine. There will be no Guillotine, and no two-hour debate, unless the voluntary agreement breaks down.
The voluntary agreement would, of course, include consideration of the unusual situation in which the Government have put down 100 new Amendments, in which case the timetable would obviously be revised. I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) made it perfectly clear; and that those who are not understanding it are being reluctant to understand what is being proposed.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Crossman: I come now to the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames. He asked why it was that a Minister of the Crown should be responsible to the House for notifying a breakdown in the agreement on the timetabling. I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) was quite right when he asked whether


it was not for Mr. Speaker to take the lead in such matter.
If the agreement arrived at between the two sides has broken down, it is for the aggrieved parties to take action, but I will give the right hon. Gentleman this absolute assurance. The Motion standing in my name provides only for a preliminary notification to Mr. Speaker, and this would not take place except after consultation through the usual channels. That is to say, the Minister would merely be reporting a fact that had been told to him by the two usual channels. He would, therefore, not be making a judgment, but reporting the judgment of the usual channels to Mr. Speaker.
The right hon. Gentleman's second Amendment proposes that we should have a whole day's debate on the proposal to remit the timetabling to the Business Committee——

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On the subject of reporting to Mr. Speaker, this Motion provides that where
… in the opinion of a Minister of the Crown "—
the agreement is working ineffectively—
a motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown …".
What we are objecting to is that it should be the opinion of a Minister of the Crown which should spark off, not a report to Mr. Speaker, but a Motion to apply a timetable.

Mr. Crossman: It would not be the opinion of the Minister; he would be merely reporting a breakdown which had been told to him by the usual channels.
The right hon. Gentleman's second Amendment proposes that we should have a six-hour debate, and not a two-hour debate. If we do that, we are back to where we were at the beginning.
We have had a long debate on a Motion which would put into practice experimentally for this Session a unanimous Report of the Select Committee. It is a compromise, as is frankly acknowledged, between the three views put forward. It would be a very great pity if this proposal, which was worked out by the Select Committee, were not to be

tried out, because it is a genuine effort to reach, by agreement between both sides, an improvement in the timetabling of the Finance Bill. I therefore hope that the House will accept the Motion.

Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: Mr. Geoffrey Hirst (Shipley) rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am trying at the moment to protect the Amendments standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). Does the hon. Gentleman wish to catch my eye?

Mr. Hirst: I only want to ask a question, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to make a speech. I should like to know whether the Motion means what it says. The words are
… any general agreement of which Mr. Speaker has been informed "—
Mr. Speaker is only informed—
is, in the opinion of a Minister of the Crown, working ineffectively …
That cannot tie up with what the Leader of the House said. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) that it will be the opinion of a Minister of the Crown that counts, not that of Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker is controlled by a Minister of the Crown. The right hon. Gentleman misled the House.

Mr. Crossman: I did not mislead the House. I gave the assurance, which I repeat, that this would not be the personal opinion of the Minister. The Minister in this case would be reporting a fact stated to him by the usual channels.

Mr. Speaker: Does the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames move his Amendments?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I beg to move.

Mr. Speaker: Both of them? If so each will be moved separately.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I hope to move both of them, Mr. Speaker, as I understood you to give me permission to do.
I formally move the first of my Amendments, which was originally in line 7, but is now in line 8, to leave out "a Minister of the Crown" and to insert "Mr. Speaker."

Question put, That "a Minister of the Crown" stand part of the Question: —

The House divided: Ayes 201, Noes 59.

Division No. 330.]
AYES
[11.14 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Forrester, John
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Fowler, Gerry
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Alldritt, Walter
Freeson, Reginald
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Anderson, Donald
Galpern, Sir Myer
Moyle, Roland


Ashley, Jack
Gardner, Tony
Murray, Albert


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Garrett, W. E.
Newens, Stan


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Gourlay, Harry
Ogden, Eric


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Gregory, Arnold
Oram, Albert E.


Barnes, Michael
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Orbach, Maurice


Barnett, Joel
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Orme, Stanley


Beaney, Alan
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Oswald, Thomas


Bence, Cyril
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Palmer, Arthur


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Pardoe, John


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Haseldine, Norman
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hazell, Bert
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Binns, John
Heffer, Eric S.
Pavitt, Laurence


Bishop, E. S.
Henig, Stanley
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Blackburn, F.
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton. K'town)
Pentland, Norman


Booth, Albert
Hooley, Frank
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, s.)


Boyden, James
Horner, John
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Bradley, Tom
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Rees, Merlyn


Brooks, Edwin
Howie, W.
Reynolds, G. W.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Huckfield, L.
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Richard, Ivor


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hunter, Adam
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Buchan, Norman
Hynd, John
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, SP'burn)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Cant, R. B.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St. P'cras, S.)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Coe, Denis
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Coleman, Donald
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rose, Paul


Concannon, J. D.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Conlan, Bernard
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Crawshaw, Richard
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Cronin, John
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Sheldon, Robert


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Lawson, George
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Leadbitter, Ted
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Dalyell, Tam
Ledger, Ron
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Lipton, Marcus
Slater, Joseph


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stratford)
Lomas, Kenneth
Spriggs, Leslie


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Lubbock, Eric
Swain, Thomas


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Swingler, Stephen


Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
McBride, Neil
Thornton, Ernest


Delargy, Hugh
MacColl, James
Tinn, James


Dell, Edmund
MacDermot, Niall
Urwin, T. W.


Dempsey, James
Macdonald, A. H.
Varley, Eric G.


Dobson, Ray
McGuire, Michael
wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Doig, Peter
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Dunnett, Jack
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Ward, Dame Irene


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Mackintosh, John P.
Watkins, David (Consett)


Eadie, Alex
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radno)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Wellbeloved, James


Ellis, John
MacPherson, Malcolm
Whitaker, Ben


English, Michael
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Whitlock, William


Ennals, David
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Ensor, David
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Mallalleu, J. P. w.(Huddersfield, E.)
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Faulds, Andrew
Manuel, Archie
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Finch, Harold
Mapp, Charles
Winnick, David


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Marquand, David
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mellish, Robert
Woof, Robert


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mendelson, J. J.
Yates, Victor


Foot, sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Mikardo, Ian



Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Millan, Bruce
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Ford, Ben
Moonman, Eric
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and




Mr. Joseph Harper.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Crowder, F. P.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Cunningham, Sir Knox


Bell, Ronald
Buck, Antony (Colchester)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cos. &amp; Fhm)
Carlisle, Mark
Drayson, G. B.


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Clark, Henry
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Cooke, Robert
Farr, John




Foster, Sir John
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Glbson-Watt, David
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Glover, Sir Douglas
Longden, Gilbert
Sharples, Richard


Gower, Raymond
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Gresham Cooke, R.
Maddan, Martin
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Maude, Angus
Teeling, Sir William


Hill, J. E. B.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Temple, John M.


Hirst, Geoffrey
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Tilney, John


Hordern, Peter
Nott, John
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Hunt, John
Onslow, Cranley
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Page, Graham (Crosby)



Kimball, Marcus
Peel, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter and


Kirk, Peter
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Mr. John Peyton.

Amendment proposed: In line 16, leave out 'two' and insert 'six'.—[Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.]

Question put, That 'two' stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 199, Noes 56.

Division No. 331.]
AYES
[11.35 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Faulds, Andrew
McNamara, J. Kevin


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Finch, Harold
MacPherson, Malcolm


Alfdritt, Walter
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Anderson, Donald
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Ashley, Jack
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Manuel, Archie


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Ford, Ben
Mapp, Charles


Barnes, Michael
Forrester, John
Marquand, David


Barnett, Joel
Fowler, Gerry
Meffish, Robert


Beaney, Alan
Freeson, Reginald
Mendelson, J. J.


Bence, Cyril
Galpern, Sir Myer
Mikardo, Ian


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Gardner, Tony
Millan, Bruce


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Garrett, W. E.
Moonman, Eric


Bidwell, Sydney
Cordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Binns, John
Gourlay, Harry
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Bishop, E. S.
Gregory, Arnold
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Blackburn, F.
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Moyle, Roland


Booth, Albert
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Murray, Albert


Boy den, James
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Newens, Stan


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Bradley, Tom
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Oakes, Gordon


Brooks, Edwin
Haseldine, Norman
Ogden, Eric


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hazell, Bert
Oram, Albert E.


Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Heffer, Eric S.
Orbach, Maurice


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Henig, Stanley
Orme, Stanley


Buchan, Norman
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Oswald, Thomas


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hooley, Frank
Palmer, Arthur


Cant, R. B.
Horner, John
Pardoe, John


Coe, Denis
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Parker, John Dagenham


Coleman, Donald
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Parker, John,(Dagenham)




Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Concannon, J. D.
Howie, W.
Pavitt, Laurence



Huckfield, L.



Conlan, Bernard
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Crawshaw, Richard
Hunter, Adam
Pentland, Norman


Cronin, John
Hynd, John
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jeger, Mrs. Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras, S.)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rees, Merlyn


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Reynolds, G. W.


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stratford)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Richard, Ivor


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Cental)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Lawson, George
Robertson, John (Paisley)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Leadbitter, Ted
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Defargy, Hugh
Ledger, Ron
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Dell, Edmund
Lipton, Marcus
Rose, Paul


Dempsey, James
Lomas, Kenneth
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Dobson, Ray
Lubbock, Eric
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Doig, Peter
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Dunnett, Jack
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Sheldon, Robert


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
McBride, Neil
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Eadie, Alex
MacColl, James
Short, Rt.Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
MacDermot, Niall
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Ellis, John
Macdonald, A. H.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


English, Michael
McGuire, Michael
Slater, Joseph


Ennals, David
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Spriggs, Leslie


Ensor, David
Mackintosh, John P.
Swain, Thomas


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Swingler, Stephen




Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Watkins, David (Consett)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Thornton, Ernest
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)
Winnick, David


Tinn, James
Wellbeloved, James
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Urwin, T. W.
Whitaker, Ben
Woof, Robert


Varley, Eric G.
Whitlock, William
Yates, Victor


Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)



Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Ward, Dame Irene
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)
Mr. Joseph Harper and




Mr. Ernest Armstrong.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Cower, Raymond
Nott, John


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Onslow, Cranley


Bell, Ronald
Heald, Rt. Hn. Lionel
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Hill, J. E. B.
Peel, John


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Hirst, Geoffrey
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hordern, Peter
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hunt, John
Russell, Sir Ronald


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Sharples, Richard


Carlisle, Mark
Kimball, Marcus
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Clark, Henry
Kirk, Peter
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Cooke, Robert
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Teeling, Sir William


Crowder, F. P.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Temple, John M.


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Longden, Gilbert
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Drayson, G. B.
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Tilney, John


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maddan, Martin
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Farr, John
Maude, Angus



Foster, Sir John
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. 8. L. C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter and


Glover, Sir Douglas
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Mr. John Peyton.

Main Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 194, Noes 50.

Division No. 332.]
AYES
[11.38 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Dobson, Ray
Hynd, John


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Doig, Peter
Jackson, Peter (High Peak)


Alldritt, Walter
Dunnett, Jack
Jeger, Mrs. Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras, S.)


Anderson, Donald
Dunwoody, Mrs, Gwyneth (Exeter)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Ashley, Jack
Eadie, Alex
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Ellis, John
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
English, Michael
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)


Barnes, Michael
Ennals, David
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Beaney, Alan
Ensor, David
Lawson, George


Bence, Cyril
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Leadbitter, Ted


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Faulds, Andrew
Lipton, Marcus


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Finch, Harold
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)


Bidwell, Sydney
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lomas, Kenneth


Binns, John
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lubbock, Eric


Bishop, E. S.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Blackburn, F.
Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Booth, Albert
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
McBride, Neil


Boyden, James
Ford, Ben
MacColl, James


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Forrester, John
MacDermot, Niall


Brooks, Edwin
Fowler, Gerry
Macdonald, A. H.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Freeson, Reginald
McGuire, Michael


Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Brown, R. w. (shoreditch &amp; F'bury)




Buchan, Norman
Gardner, Tony
Mackintosh, John P.


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Cordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)


Cant, R. B.
Gregory, Arnold
McNamara, J. Kevin


Coe, Denis
Grey, Charles (Durham)
MacPherson, Malcolm


Coleman, Donald
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Concannon, J. D.
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Conlan, Bernard
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Crawshaw, Richard
Harper, Joseph
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)


Cronin, John
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Manuel, Archie


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Haseldine, Norman
Mapp, Charles


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hazell, Bert
Marquand, David


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Heffer, Eric S.
Mellish, Robert


Dalyell, Tam
Henig, Stanley
Mendelson, J. J.


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton. K'town)
Mikardo, Ian


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Hooley, Frank
Millan, Bruce


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Horner, John
Moonman, Eric


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Howie, W.
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Delargy, Hugh
Huckfield, L.
Murray, Albert


Dell, Edmund
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Newens, Stan


Dempsey, James
Hunter, Adam
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swlndon)




Oakes, Gordon
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Ogden, Eric
Robinson, w. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Oram, Albert E.
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Ward, Dame Irene


Orbach, Maurice
Rose, Paul
Watkins, David (Consett)


Orme, Stanley
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Oswald, Thomas
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Wellbeloved, James


Palmer, Arthur
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Whitaker, Ben


Pardoe, John
Sheldon, Robert
Whitlock, William


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Shore, Peter (Stepney)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward(N 'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Pavitt, Laurence
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Pentland, Norman
Slater, Joseph
Winnick, David


Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Spriggs, Leslie
Woodburn, Pt. Hn. A.


Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Swain, Thomas
Woof, Robert


Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Swingler, Stephen
Yates, Victor


Rees, Merlyn
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)



Reynolds, G. W.
Thornton, Ernest
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Rhodes, Geoffrey
Tinn, James
Mr. Charles R. Morris and


Richard, Ivor
Urwin, T. W.
Mr. Ernest Armstrong.


Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfodshire, S.)
Varley, Eric G.





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Glover, Sir Douglas
Nott, John


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Gower, Raymond
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Bell, Ronald
Gresham Cooke, R.
Peel, John


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Hill, J. E. B.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Hirst, Geoffrey
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hordern, Peter
Russell, Sir Ronald


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hunt, John
Sharples, Richard


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Clark, Henry
Kimball, Marcus
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Cooke, Robert
Kirk, Peter
Temple, John M.


Crowder, F. P.
Longden, Gilbert
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Tilney, John


Drayson, G. B.
Maddan, Martin
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maude, Angus



Farr, John
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Foster, Sir John
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter and


Gibson-Watt, David
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Mr. John Peyton.

Ordered,
That, during the remainder of the Session, where, in respect of a bill for imposing, renewing, varying or repealing any charge upon the people, either—

(a) Mr. Speaker has been informed that no general agreement to allot a specified number of days or portions of days to the consideration of the Bill in Committee or on report has been reached, or
(b) any general agreement of which Mr. Speaker has been informed is, in the opinion of a Minister of the Crown, working ineffectively,
a motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown that the Business Committee shall make recommendations to the House as to the number of days or portions of days to be allotted to the consideration of the bill in committee, on report or on third reading, and as to the time by which proceedings on any

parts into which they may divide the bill shall be brought to a conclusion in committee or on report and any further recommendations which may in their opinion be necessary to ensure the bringing to a conclusion of the proceedings on the parts of the bill allotted to those days or portions of days; and the question on such a motion shall be put not more than two hours after the commencement of proceedings thereon;
That for the purposes of this Order the Business Committee shall consist of the Chairmen's Panel together with not more than five other Members to be nominated by Mr. Speaker:
That, when the Business Committee shall have reported the resolution or resolutions containing their recommendations to the House, the provisions of sub-paragraph (c) of Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) shall apply to the proceedings on any motions for the consideration of such report and on the consideration of the said report.

DRUG PEDDLING

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this H6use do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]

11.42 p.m.

Sir Charles Taylor: I am sincerely sorry for the right hon. Lady the Minister of State, who had to be here very early this morning—which was not my fault—and who again has to be here late this evening, but, in the words of the immortal Lewis Carroll, "Time never meant anything to Alice".
We have to do something to stop the drug pedlar. The situation has become desperate, so much so that a doctor said not very long ago that the medical profession might just as well give up the present generation as hopeless, write them off, and start concentrating on preventing the next generation from going the same way. One can hardly pick up a newspaper today without reading of one or more cases of drug takers being caught and fined. My local newspaper, the Eastbourne Herald Chronicle, reported on the front page last Saturday the case of a 19-year-old warehouseman who was caught and fined £100 for unlawfully possessing drugs. He said that he got them from a local public house.
The News of the World yesterday, told the most dreadful story of a doctor prescribing 120 heroin tablets a day for a drug addict. That addict sold them to young boys and young girls, one of whom was only 15 years of age. The Nigerian who peddled the heroin left behind him a trail of misery and despair. Once his victims were firmly hooked on the pills that he gave them, he cut off their supply and watched them squirm, pleading for him to give them what I believe is called a "fix". Last week an inquest was held in Reigate on an 18-year-old girl who was one of this evil man's victims. The coroner recorded death from heroin addiction.
The story continues, day after day, month after month. It has now reached the most dreadful proportions. On 27th February, there was a television programme on B.B.C.l which showed the backs of three self-confessed drug takers being interviewed by a member of the Twenty-Four Hours' team of interviewers. One of them explained that he had been

kept in a 15 guineas a week flat by a drug pedlar for the sole purpose of selling drugs to other people.
Immediately after that programme I got on to Scotland Yard and asked them what they were doing to pick up the people who had been on that programme. Subsequently, I asked a Question in the House and I got a very unsatisfactory Answer from the right hon. Lady the Minister of State. On 6th April I received a letter from the hon. Lady asking if I would give her further particulars. I replied saying:
I do not know that I can give you any more information than that in the television interview it was stated that one of the drug pedlers admitted having been kept in a fifteen guineas a week flat by a drug procurer I still cannot understand why, upon my advice, the police did not pick up the three persons interviewed in this B.B.C. programme which could easily have been done. … Were not the B.B.C. guilty of compounding a felony in not giving information to the police in the first place?
I got a reply from the right hon. Lady, dated 18th April, thanking me for the information I had given her referring to the complaint I had made about gang warfare and gambling interests. I had not written to the right hon. Lady about gang warfare and gambling interests, but about drug peddling.
Not until 26th April did I get another letter from the right hon. Lady, in which she said:
Thank you for your letter about self-confessed drug pedlars on the television programme. The police made inquiries. … One stated that he had no fixed abode and the other two gave a post office address. Efforts to trace them have, however, been without success.
You asked whether the B.B.C were guilty of compounding a felony. Apart from the difficulty of proving that anyone had evidence on which action could be taken, drug offences are not felonies.
I suppose that the B.B.C. paid these people to appear on television. I should have thought that it was deplorable for the B.B.C. to put on such a programme advertising drug peddling and drug taking. I am not a member of the Flying Squad, but I could have got round to the B.B.C. in two or three minutes and picked up these three men. I cannot see why the police did not pick them up for questioning.
So far, I have concentrated my remarks on the drug pedlars and drug takers, but I now want to consider the question of


where these drugs come from. Presumably, they can only be bought on prescription. During the war, Scotland Yard had a list of doctors who were prepared to sell bogus certificates to young men eligible for military service, saying that they suffered from epilepsy. Scotland Yard explained to me that they were unable to take action against these doctors, because if they took action against a particular doctor half a dozen others would confirm that the purchaser of the certificate really did suffer from epilepsy.
These doctors were a disgrace to their profession, a profession which, I believe, is 99·9 per cent. honourable in every way. In the same way, I suppose that there are today doctors who, for their own gain, are prepared to give prescriptions to drug pedlars and addicts. Most of those drugs, as we know only too well, find their way through the sleazy "pubs" and the bad coffee-houses into the pockets of the teen-agers and others in search of a thrill. One has read recently of cases where a whole year's supply of drugs has been prescribed by a doctor, presumably because he does not wish to sign the prescriptions too often, two or three times a week.
It is not right for any doctor to give any patient, drug addict or otherwise, a year's supply of drugs. In any case, I do not believe that any doctor should give a patient more than a week or a few days' supply. This is bound to lead to trouble and abuse.
I hope that as a result of this debate the Home Office will consider reviewing all the rules and regulations applying to drugs prescriptions. I hope that if any doctor is caught in this wicked trade, the penalties will be most severe. I am sorry that the universities seem to be a hot-bed of drug taking. Maybe some of the students, having been crammed at school, are trying to keep up at university. They may have got four or five A levels at school and feel that to make good at university they must take "pep" pills.
I must say a word about the "pop" groups. These seem to be the stars of today. When I was at school and university, people like Jack Hobbs and Sandham and Lionel Tennyson were the schoolboy heroes, as cricketers. Or there were the footballers such as "Wakers", who was

until recently a member of this House, and Stanley Matthews—those sort of people were our heroes. Now it seems to be the "pop" groups who are the heroes, and, unfortunately, many of them are drug addicts. They are setting a vicious and beastly example to their fans.

11.54 p.m.

Dr. David Kerr: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene very briefly to deal with one or two of the misconceptions which the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor), in his praiseworthy attempt to draw attention to this dreadful problem, has demonstrated. I refer particularly to those charges against some of my colleagues in the profession.
It is not axiomatically true that the prescription of 120 heroin tablets is necessarily a criminal act, or even an act of misjudgment. It may be an act of kindness on the part of a doctor who, knowing that he is dealing with an addict, and knowing the dreadful consequences which that addict would suffer from withdrawal of the drug, prescribes the drugs deliberately, knowing what is involved.
I hope that the hon. Member will not press the charge which he made, that this was a dreadful thing to do. What was dreadful was that the addict made the drugs available to others. There are two kinds of drug pedlars. There are the addicts who, and this is recognised in the Government's Dangerous Drugs Bill, are suffering from an illness, and the only effective treatment open to them is to take more drugs. This means making drugs available, and perhaps encouraging others to become addicts. For this group of people we should combine censure with a good deal of sympathy and understanding.
The other group are the men and women, who are not addicts and who bring the drugs into this country, or dispose of them here without the excuse of being addicts. Society cannot condemn them sufficiently, or express deeply enough its loathing for these white slugs of society. Those are the people—not the "pop" groups, not the already addicted sufferers, but the cold calculating, money-grabbing, battening pedlars—that we want to catch.
I hope very much that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will be able to say something about the proposals of the Home Office.

11.55 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Alice Bacon): I am sorry, but in my letters to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) two inquiries which he had made were not confused; he had written about the television broadcast and had telephoned my office about gang warfare.

Sir C. Taylor: Sir C. Taylor indicated dissent.

Miss Bacon: My information was that the hon. Member had telephoned. It may be that some other hon. Member had telephoned and the hon. Member had been mistaken for him. My information was that the hon. Member had telephoned about gang warfare. That was the reason for the letter.
Many of the matters which the hon. Member raised at the beginning of his speech have been discussed at great length daring the last few weeks on the Dangerous Drugs Bill, which I introduced on Second Reading and which has just completed its Committee stage. That Bill is designed precisely to do what the hon. Member thinks should be done: that is, to see that drugs are supplied only through special treatment centres, which will do away with individual doctors prescribing drugs for drug addicts.
I do not know whether the hon. Member has been following all our debates, but we had an interesting debate in the House on the whole question of drugs. We then had the Second Reading debate on the Dangerous Drugs Bill. The Bill will shortly come before the House on Report stage and Third Reading. The hon. Member will therefore, I think, agree that many of the things for which he asked at the beginning of his speech are being done.
I come now to the prosecutions which, the hon. Member thought, should have been made as a result of the television programme in February.

Sir C. Taylor: Interrogation.

Miss Bacon: Well, interrogation. It was a television programme, whether it is called an interrogation——

Sir C. Taylor: I was not asking for a prosecution. I was asking for an interrogation of the people in the programme.

Miss Bacon: Yes; I will come to that.
The police have been very vigilant indeed in tracking down drug pedlars and people who have drugs in their possession. I am informed by the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolitan area that from 1st January to 25th April this year, there were 810 arrests for drug offences within the Metropolitan area alone. If we read the newspapers, every day we can learn of the hard work which is being done by the police, not only in London, but all over the country, in tracking down these people.
The hon. Member has said that he telephoned the B.B.C. after the broadcast——

Sir C. Taylor: No; the police.

Miss Bacon: He said that he telephoned the police and asked why they had not caught up with these people. First——

Sir C. Taylor: Sir C. Taylor rose——

Miss Bacon: My time to reply is short.

Sir C. Taylor: I am sorry to interrupt, but the right hon. Lady is misquoting me. I telephoned the police and asked them to go and pick up the three men.

Miss Bacon: Yes, I know. That is what I am coming to. The hon. Member is wasting the time which I have to answer what he has said.
First, before the police can pick up the men, they must find them. Even if they had been waiting outside the television studios when the broadcast was made, it would have been impossible to pick up those men because, as is frequently the case, this was a recorded television broadcast, which had been recorded some days previously. Therefore, even if the police had known what was coming on television and if they had been waiting outside the doors of the television studio, they would not have been able to pick up the men.
I agree with the hon. Member that it is to be deplored that criminals should be able to talk openly or even to boast about their crimes without being apprehended. The fact that something is said on television, however, is not necessarily an indication that it is true. I do not know what the truth was in this programme. But men who talk about their


alleged crimes are unlikely to be the most truthful of people. Even if they happen to be criminals and to have committed the offences which they allege, a confession on television is unlikely to carry much weight in a court of law if the person denies it when confronted by the police.
As far as drugs are concerned, it is the experience of the police that any legal action is only likely to be successful if people are found in possession of drugs which can be used as evidence. As I have said, the police are very vigilant in looking for those who are in possession of drugs.
The hon. Member suggested that the peddlers in the television programme on peddlers should have been apprehended, but, as I have explained, this was a recorded programme; so they could not have been apprehended immediately. On the following morning, however, the police approached the B.B.C. who, in due course, supplied a script of the programme and information about the three men who had been interviewed as drug peddlers. Two gave names which could not be traced by the police and the third one gave only a Christian name. One said that he was of no fixed abode and the other two gave as an address a post office in Brighton. Further inquiries have been made by the police in Brighton but it has not been possible to trace these men.
The hon. Gentleman has said that one of the alleged drug pedlars on the programme said that he had been kept in a 15-guinea a week flat by a drug procurer. That is so; I have read the script of the television programme. But later in the programme the same person said that he had been convicted for drug offences, had served a term in prison and that subsequently he had had no dealings with drugs. If that is so—I am not saying that it is true—it would have been impossible for the police to have arrested this man a second time if he had already served a period in prison for that offence. If this aspect of the interview is accepted, there would appear to be little likelihood that, even if the men could be identified, the police would be able to obtain sufficient evidence to gain a conviction.
I have already given the figures for the number of drug offences between January

and April in the Metropolitan area. In 1966, there were more convictions for drug offences than in any previous year. Convictions under the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1965, were 1,174, an increase of over 50 per cent. in one year. Last year, there were 1,261 convictions under the Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1964. I think these figures leave no doubt that the police have been acting energetically. We are studying ways in which the police effort against drug peddling can be helped and encouraged.
In many areas police organisation to give attention to drug problems is being reviewed. A number of forces are drawing upon the special experience of the Drug Squad at Scotland Yard, and a closer liaison is being fostered with the Drugs Branch at the Home Office. We at the Home Office are in consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers about the adequacy of police powers of search.
I have mentioned in recent debates our concern to secure improved standards in the safe keeping of drugs. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has put certain proposals before the representative associations of pharmacists, drug manufacturers and wholesalers and it may be that he will propose some strengthening of the law at a later stage of the proceedings of the Dangerous Drugs Bill, now before Parliament. The Bill itself, as I have said, will pave the way to closer control over supplies of drugs to addicts. We have also been giving close attention to the question of teen-age clubs where drug traficking is a problem. As the hon. Member will know, the Bill which was introduced in another place by the Lord Chief Justice has now gone through all its stages in this House.
Recent debates have shown general sympathy with the plight of drug addicts and their need for treatment. However, prevention is better than cure. The Government fully accept the hon. Member's concern for effective enforcement of controls, but we do not underestimate the task facing police and Customs officers in detecting and stopping illicit traffic. The challenge of drug peddling is complex and formidable, but I assure the hon. Member that we shall continue to meet it with vigour and enterprise.
I also assure the hon. Member that he is wrong in thinking that the police


could just have picked up these people——

Sir C. Taylor: So they could.

Miss Bacon: —who had given this interview on television. It just was not possible for the police to do that. They did what they could, but, in the absence of their names and addresses, they could do no more. Indeed, even if the police had found their names and addresses it might not have been easy to prove that an offence had taken place, since what was described might have occurred some years previously; that is, even if what these people had been saying on television was true.
As I have pointed out, I think that the hon. Member is under the impression that if he had telephoned the B.B.C. immediately——

Sir C. Taylor: Within minutes.

Miss Bacon: —or within minutes, the police could have rushed to the Television Centre, waited outside and caught these people. That would not have been possible, because this programme, like most programmes of this kind, was recorded, and that was probably done some days earlier. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member will recognise that we and the police did all we could and that he is really asking us to do the impossible.

Sir C. Taylor: Before the right hon. Lady sits down, would she at least utter one word of condemnation against the B.B.C. for putting on such a disgraceful programme?

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past Twelve o'clock.